Project Gutenberg's More Letters of Charles Darwin, by Charles Darwin
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: More Letters of Charles Darwin
Volume I (of II)
Author: Charles Darwin
Editor: Francis Darwin and A.C. Seward
Release Date: December 1, 2008 [EBook #2739]
Last Updated: January 22, 2013
Language: English
Character set encoding: ASCII
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN ***
Produced by Sue Asscher, and David Widger

A RECORD OF HIS WORK IN A SERIES OF HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED LETTERS

IN TWO VOLUMES

All other notes by Charles Darwin's editors appear in the text, in
brackets () with a Chapter/Note or Letter/Note number.

VOLUME I.

DEDICATED WITH AFFECTION AND RESPECT, TO

SIR JOSEPH HOOKER

IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH CHARLES DARWIN

"You will never know how much I owe to you for your constant
kindness and encouragement"

CHARLES DARWIN TO SIR JOSEPH
HOOKER, SEPTEMBER 14, 1862

PREFACE

The "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" was published in 1887. Since that
date, through the kindness of various correspondents, additional letters
have been received; among them may be mentioned those written by Mr.
Darwin to Mr. Belt, Lady Derby, Hugh Falconer, Mr. Francis Galton, Huxley,
Lyell, Mr. John Morley, Max Muller, Owen, Lord Playfair, John Scott,
Thwaites, Sir William Turner, John Jenner Weir. But the material for our
work consisted in chief part of a mass of letters which, for want of space
or for other reasons, were not printed in the "Life and Letters." We would
draw particular attention to the correspondence with Sir Joseph Hooker. To
him Mr. Darwin wrote with complete freedom, and this has given something
of a personal charm to the most technical of his letters. There is also
much correspondence, hardly inferior in biographical interest, with Sir
Charles Lyell, Fritz Muller, Mr. Huxley, and Mr. Wallace. From this unused
material we have been able to compile an almost complete record of Mr.
Darwin's work in a series of letters now published for the first time. We
have, however, in a few instances, repeated paragraphs, or in one or two
cases whole letters, from the "Life and Letters," where such repetition
seemed necessary for the sake of clearness or continuity.

Our two volumes contain practically all the matter that it now seems
desirable to publish. But at some future time others may find interesting
data in what remains unprinted; this is certainly true of a short series
of letters dealing with the Cirripedes, which are omitted solely for want
of space. (Preface/1. Those addressed to the late Albany Hancock have
already appeared in the "Transactions of the Tyneside Nat. Field Club,"
VIII., page 250.)

We are fortunate in being permitted, by Sir Joseph Hooker and by Mr.
Wallace, to publish certain letters from them to Mr. Darwin. We have also
been able to give a few letters from Sir Charles Lyell, Hugh Falconer,
Edward Forbes, Dr. Asa Gray, Professor Hyatt, Fritz Muller, Mr. Francis
Galton, and Sir T. Lauder Brunton. To the two last named, also to Mrs.
Lyell (the biographer of Sir Charles), Mrs. Asa Gray and Mrs. Hyatt, we
desire to express our grateful acknowledgments.

The present volumes have been prepared, so as to give as full an idea as
possible of the course of Mr. Darwin's work. The volumes therefore
necessarily contain many letters of a highly technical character, but
none, we hope, which are not essentially interesting. With a view to
saving space, we have confined ourselves to elucidating the letters by
full annotations, and have for the same reason—though with some
regret—omitted in most cases the beginnings and endings of the
letters. For the main facts of Mr. Darwin's life, we refer our readers to
the abstract of his private Diary, given in the present volume.

Mr. Darwin generally wrote his letters when he was tired or hurried, and
this often led to the omission of words. We have usually inserted the
articles, and this without any indication of their absence in the
originals. Where there seemed any possibility of producing an alteration
of meaning (and in many cases where there is no such possibility) we have
placed the introduced words in square brackets. We may say once for all
that throughout the book square brackets indicate words not found in the
originals. (Preface/2. Except in a few places where brackets are used to
indicate passages previously published. In all such cases the meaning of
the symbol is explained.) Dots indicate omissions, but many omissions are
made without being so indicated.

The selection and arrangement of the letters have not been easy. Our plan
has been to classify the letters according to subject—into such as
deal with Evolution, Geographical Distribution, Botany, etc., and in each
group to place the letters chronologically. But in several of the chapters
we have adopted sectional headings, which we believe will be a help to the
reader. The great difficulty lay in deciding in which of the chief groups
a given letter should be placed. If the MS. had been cut up into
paragraphs, there would have been no such difficulty; but we feel strongly
that a letter should as far as possible be treated as a whole. We have in
fact allowed this principle to interfere with an accurate classification,
so that the reader will find, for instance, in the chapters on Evolution,
questions considered which might equally well have come under Geographical
Distribution or Geology, or questions in the chapter on Man which might
have been placed under the heading Evolution. In the same way, to avoid
mutilation, we have allowed references to one branch of science to remain
in letters mainly concerned with another subject. For these irregularities
we must ask the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that some pains
have been devoted to arrangement.

Mr. Darwin, who was careful in other things, generally omitted the date in
familiar correspondence, and it is often only by treating a letter as a
detective studies a crime that we can make sure of its date. Fortunately,
however, Sir Joseph Hooker and others of Darwin's correspondents were
accustomed to add the date on which the letters were received. This
sometimes leads to an inaccuracy which needs a word of explanation. Thus a
letter which Mr. Darwin dated "Wednesday" might be headed by us "Wednesday
{January 3rd, 1867}," the latter half being the date on which the letter
was received; if it had been dated by the writer it would have been
"Wednesday, January 2nd, 1867."

In thanking those friends—especially Sir Joseph Hooker and Mr.
Wallace—who have looked through some of our proof-sheets, we wish to
make it clear that they are not in the smallest degree responsible for our
errors or omissions; the weight of our shortcomings rests on us alone.

We desire to express our gratitude to those who have so readily supplied
us with information, especially to Sir Joseph Hooker, Professor Judd,
Professor Newton, Dr. Sharp, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and Mr. Wallace. And we
have pleasure in mentioning Mr. H.W. Rutherford, of the University
Library, to whose conscientious work as a copyist we are much indebted.

Finally, it is a pleasure to express our obligation to those who have
helped us in the matter of illustrations. The portraits of Dr. Asa Gray,
Mr. Huxley, Sir Charles Lyell, Mr. Romanes, are from their respective
Biographies, and for permission to make use of them we have to thank Mrs.
Gray, Mr. L. Huxley, Mrs. Lyell, and Mrs. Romanes, as well as the
publishers of the books in question. For the reproduction of the early
portrait of Mr. Darwin we are indebted to Miss Wedgwood; for the
interesting portraits of Hugh Falconer and Edward Forbes we have to thank
Mr. Irvine Smith, who obtained for us the negatives; these being of paper,
and nearly sixty years old, rendered their reproduction a work of some
difficulty. We also thank Messrs. Elliott & Fry for very kindly
placing at our disposal a negative of the fine portrait, which forms the
frontispiece to Volume II. For the opportunity of making facsimiles of
diagrams in certain of the letters, we are once more indebted to Sir
Joseph Hooker, who has most generously given the original letters to Mr.
Darwin's family.

MORE LETTERS OF CHARLES DARWIN.

VOLUME I.

OUTLINE OF CHARLES DARWIN'S LIFE.

BASED ON HIS DIARY, DATED AUGUST 1838.

References to the Journals in which Mr. Darwin's papers were published
will be found in his "Life and Letters" III., Appendix II. We are greatly
indebted to Mr. C.F. Cox, of New York, for calling our attention to
mistakes in the Appendix, and we take this opportunity of correcting them.

Appendix II., List ii.—Mr. Romanes spoke on Mr. Darwin's essay on
Instinct at a meeting of the Linnean Society, December 6th, 1883, and some
account of it is given in "Nature" of the same date. But it was not
published by the Linnean Society.

Appendix II., List iii.—"Origin of saliferous deposits. Salt lakes
of Patagonia and La Plata" (1838). This is the heading of an extract from
Darwin's volume on South America reprinted in the "Quarterly Journal of
the Geological Society," Volume II., Part ii., "Miscellanea," pages 127-8,
1846.

The paper on "Analogy of the Structure of some Volcanic Rocks, etc." was
published in 1845, not in 1851.

A paper "On the Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency," in the
"Entomologist's Weekly Intelligencer" viii., and "Gardeners' Chronicle,"
June 9th, 1860, should be inserted in the bibliography.

1809. February 12th: Born at Shrewsbury.

1817. Death of his mother.

1818. Went to Shrewsbury School.

1825. Left Shrewsbury School.

1826.

October: Went to Edinburgh University. Read two papers before the Plinian
Society of Edinburgh "at the close of 1826 or early in 1827."

1827. Entered at Christ's College, Cambridge.

1828. Began residence at Cambridge.

1831.

January: Passed his examination for B.A., and kept the two following
terms.

August: Geological tour with Sedgwick.

September 11th: Went to Plymouth to see the "Beagle."

October 2nd: "Took leave of my home."

December 27th: "Sailed from England on our circumnavigation."

1832.

January 16th: "First landed on a tropical shore" (Santiago).

1833.

December 6th: "Sailed for last time from Rio Plata."

1834.

June 10th: "Sailed for last time from Tierra del Fuego."

1835.

September 5th: "Sailed from west shores of South America."

November 16th: Letters to Professor Henslow, read at a meeting of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society.

November 18th: Paper read before the Geological Society on Notes made
during a Survey of the East and West Coasts of South America in years
1832-35.

1836.

May 31st: Anchored at the Cape of Good Hope.

October 2nd: Anchored at Falmouth.

October 4th: Reached Shrewsbury after an absence of five years and two
days.

December 13th: Went to live at Cambridge.

1837.

January 4th: Paper on Recent Elevation in Chili read.

March 13th: Settled at 36, Great Marlborough Street.

March 14th: Paper on "Rhea" read.

May: Read papers on Coral Formation, and on the Pampas, to the Geological
Society.

July: Opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.

March 13th to November: Occupied with his Journal.

October and November: Preparing the scheme for the Zoology of the Voyage
of the "Beagle." Working at Geology of South America.

November 1st: Read the paper on Earthworms before the Geological Society.

1838.

Worked at the Geology of South America and Zoology of Voyage. "Some little
species theory."

March 7th: Read paper on the Connexion of certain Volcanic Phenomena and
on the Formation of Mountain Chains, to the Geological Society.

May: Health began to break down.

June 23rd: Started for Glen Roy. The paper on Glen Roy was written in
August and September.

October 5th: Began Coral paper.

November 11th: Engaged to be married to his cousin, Emma Wedgwood.

December 31st: "Entered 12 Upper Gower Street."

1839.

January 29th: Married at Maer.

February and March: Some work on Corals and on Species Theory.

March (part) and April: Working at Coral paper. Papers on a Rock seen on
an Iceberg, and on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy. Published "Journal and
Remarks," being volume iii. of the "Narrative of the Surveying Voyages of
H.M.S. 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,' etc." For the rest of the year, Corals
and Zoology of the Voyage. Publication of the "Zoology of the Voyage of
H.M.S. 'Beagle,'" Part II. (Mammalia).

1840.

Worked at Corals and the Zoology of the Voyage. Contributed Geological
introduction to Part I. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Fossil Mammalia by
Owen).

1841.

Publication of Part III. of the "Zoology of the Voyage" (Birds). Read
paper on Boulders and Glacial Deposits of South America, to Geological
Society. Published paper on a remarkable bar of Sandstone off Pernambuco,
on the coast of Brazil. Publication of Part IV. of "Zoology of the Voyage"
(Fish).

July to September: Wrote an enlarged version of Species Theory. Papers on
Sagitta, and on Planaria.

July 27th: Began his book on the Geology of South America.

1845.

Paper on the Analogy of the Structure of Volcanic Rocks with that of
Glaciers. "Proc. R. Soc. Edin."

April 25th to August 25th: Working at second edition of "Naturalist's
Voyage."

1846.

October 1st: Finished last proof of "Geological Observations on South
America." Papers on Atlantic Dust, and on Geology of Falkland Islands,
communicated to the Geological Society. Paper on Arthrobalanus.

1847.

Working at Cirripedes. Review of Waterhouse's "Natural History of the
Mammalia."

1848.

March 20th: Finished Scientific Instructions in Geology for the Admiralty
Manual. Working at Cirripedes. Paper on Erratic Boulders.

1849.

Health especially bad. Working at Cirripedes.

March-June: Water-cure at Malvern.

1850.

Working at Cirripedes. Published Monographs of Recent and Fossil
Lepadidae.

1852.

Working at Cirripedes.

1853.

November 30th: "Royal Medal given to me."

1854.

Published Monographs on Recent and on Fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae.

September 9th: Finished packing up all my Cirripedes. "Began sorting notes
for Species Theory."

1855.

March-April: Experiments on the effect of salt water on seeds. Papers on
Icebergs and on Vitality of Seeds.

1856.

May 14th: "Began, by Lyell's advice, writing Species Sketch" (described in
"Life and Letters" as the "Unfinished Book").

December 16th: Finished Chapter III. Paper read to Linnean Society, On
Sea-water and the Germination of Seeds.

1857.

September 29th: Finished Chapters VII. and VIII.

September 30th to December 29th: Working on Hybridism. Paper on the Agency
of Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers.

1858.

March 9th: "Finished Instinct chapter."

June 18th: Received Mr. Wallace's sketch of his evolutionary theory.

July 1st: Joint paper of Darwin and Wallace read at the Linnean Society.

July 20th to July 27th: "Began Abstract of Species book," i.e., the
"Origin of Species," at Sandown, I.W. Paper on Bees and Fertilisation of
Flowers.

1859.

May 25th: Began proof-sheets of the "Origin of Species."

November 24th: Publication of the "Origin": 1250 copies printed.

October 2nd to December 9th: At the water-cure establishment, Ilkley,
Yorkshire.

1860.

January 7th: Publication of Edition II. of "Origin" (3000 copies).

January 9th: "Looking over MS. on Variation." Paper on the Fertilisation
of British Orchids.

July and again in September: Made observations on Drosera. Paper on Moths
and Flowers. Publication of "A Naturalist's Voyage."

1861.

Up to July at work on "Variation under Domestication."

April 30th: Publication of Edition III. of "Origin" (2000 copies).

July to the end of year: At work on Orchids.

November: Primula paper read at Linnean Society. Papers on Pumilio and on
Fertilisation of Vinca.

1862.

May 15th: Orchid book published. Working at Variation. Paper on Catasetum
(Linnean Society). Contribution to Chapter III. of Jenyns' Memoir of
Henslow.

1863.

Working at "Variation under Domestication." Papers on Yellow Rain, the
Pampas, and on Cirripedes. A review of Bates' paper on Mimetic
Butterflies. Severe illness to the end of year.

1864.

Illness continued until April. Paper on Linum published by the Linnean
Society.

May 25th: Paper on Lythrum finished.

September 13th: Paper on Climbing Plants finished. Work on "Variation
under Domestication."

November 30th: Copley medal awarded to him.

1865.

January 1st: Continued at work on Variation until April 22nd. The work was
interrupted by illness until late in the autumn.

February: Read paper on Climbing Plants.

December 25th: Began again on Variation.

1866.

Continued work at "Variation under Domestication."

March 1st to May 10th: At work on Edition IV. of the "Origin." Published
June (1250 copies). Read paper on Cytisus scoparius to the Linnean
Society.

December 22nd: Began the last chapter of "Variation under Domestication."

1867.

November 15th: Finished revises of "Variation under Domestication."

December: Began papers on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic
Plants, and on Primula.

1868.

January 30th: Publication of "Variation under Domestication."

February 4th: Began work on Man.

February 10th: New edition of "Variation under Domestication." Read papers
on Illegitimate Unions of Dimorphic and Trimorphic Plants, and on
Verbascum.

1869.

February 10th: "Finished fifth edition of 'Origin'; has taken me forty-six
days."

Edition V. published in May.

Working at the "Descent of Man." Papers on the Fertilisation of Orchids,
and on the Fertilisation of Winter-flowering Plants.

1870.

Working at the "Descent of Man." Paper on the Pampas Woodpecker.

1871.

January 17th: Began the "Expression of the Emotions."

February 24th: "Descent of Man" published (2500 copies).

April 27th: Finished the rough copy of "Expression."

June 18th: Began Edition VI. of "Origin." Paper on the Fertilisation of
Leschenaultia.

1872.

January 10th: Finished proofs of Edition VI. of the "Origin," and "again
rewriting 'Expression.'"

August 22nd: Finished last proofs of "Expression."

August 23rd: Began working at Drosera.

November: "Expression" published (7000 copies, and 2000 more printed at
the end of the year.)

November 8th: "At Murray's sale 5267 copies sold to London booksellers."

1873.

January: Correcting the Climbing Plants paper for publication as a book.

July 6th: "Correcting 2nd edition of 'Variation under Domestication.'" It
was published in the autumn.

September 1st (approximately): Began on "Cross and Self-Fertilisation."

November: Vivisection Commission.

1876.

May 5th: "Finished MS., first time over, of 'Cross and
Self-Fertilisation.'"

May to June: Correction of "Fertilisation of Orchids," Edition II. Wrote
his Autobiographical Sketch.

May and November: Contributions to "Nature."

August 19th: First proofs of "Cross and Self-Fertilisation."

November 10th: "Cross and Self-Fertilisation" published (1500 copies).

1877.

"All the early part of summer at work on 'Different Forms of Flowers.'"

July: Publication of "Different Forms of Flowers" (1250 copies). During
the rest of the year at work on the bloom on leaves, movements of plants,
"and a little on worms."

November: LL.D. at Cambridge. Second edition of "Fertilisation of Orchids"
published. Contributions to "Nature," "Gardeners' Chronicle," and "Mind."

1878.

The whole year at work on movements of plants, and on the bloom on leaves.

May: Contribution to "Nature." Second edition of "Different Forms of
Flowers." Wrote prefatory letter to Kerner's "Flowers and their Unbidden
Guests."

1879.

The whole year at work on movements of plants, except for "about six
weeks" in the spring and early summer given to the "Life of Erasmus
Darwin," which was published in the autumn. Contributions to "Nature."

1880. "All spring finishing MS. of 'Power of Movement in Plants' and proof
sheets." "Began in autumn on Worms." Prefatory notice written for
Meldola's translation of Weismann's book.

November 6th: 1500 copies of "Power of Movement" sold at Murray's sale.
Contributions to "Nature."

1881.

During all the early part of the year at work on the "Worm book." Several
contributions to "Nature."

October 10th: The book on "Earthworms" published: 2000 copies sold at
once.

November: At work on the action of carbonate of ammonia on plants.

1882.

No entries in the Diary.

February: At work correcting the sixth thousand of the "Earthworms."

March 6th and March 16th: Papers on the action of Carbonate of Ammonia on
roots, etc., read at the Linnean Society.

April 6th: Note to "Nature" on Dispersal of Bivalves.

April 18th: Van Dyck's paper on Syrian Dogs, with a preliminary notice by
Charles Darwin, read before the Zoological Society.

April 19th: Charles Darwin died at Down.

CHARLES DARWIN

CHAPTER 1.I.—AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL FRAGMENT, AND EARLY LETTERS.

1809-1842.

(Chapter I./1. In the process of removing the remainder of Mr. Darwin's
books and papers from Down, the following autobiographical notes, written
in 1838, came to light. They seem to us worth publishing—both as
giving some new facts, and also as illustrating the interest which he
clearly felt in his own development. Many words are omitted in the
manuscript, and some names incorrectly spelled; the corrections which have
been made are not always indicated.)

My earliest recollection, the date of which I can approximately tell, and
which must have been before I was four years old, was when sitting on
Caroline's (Caroline Darwin) knee in the drawing room, whilst she was
cutting an orange for me, a cow ran by the window which made me jump, so
that I received a bad cut, of which I bear the scar to this day. Of this
scene I recollect the place where I sat and the cause of the fright, but
not the cut itself, and I think my memory is real, and not as often
happens in similar cases, {derived} from hearing the thing often repeated,
{when} one obtains so vivid an image, that it cannot be separated from
memory: because I clearly remember which way the cow ran, which would not
probably have been told me. My memory here is an obscure picture, in which
from not recollecting any pain I am scarcely conscious of its reference to
myself.

1813.

When I was four years and a half old I went to the sea, and stayed there
some weeks. I remember many things, but with the exception of the
maidservants (and these are not individualised) I recollect none of my
family who were there. I remember either myself or Catherine being
naughty, and being shut up in a room and trying to break the windows. I
have an obscure picture of a house before my eyes, and of a neighbouring
small shop, where the owner gave me one fig, but which to my great joy
turned out to be two: this fig was given me that the man might kiss the
maidservant. I remember a common walk to a kind of well, on the road to
which was a cottage shaded with damascene (Chapter I./2. Damson is derived
from Damascene; the fruit was formerly known as a "Damask Prune.") trees,
inhabited by an old man, called a hermit, with white hair, who used to
give us damascenes. I know not whether the damascenes, or the reverence
and indistinct fear for this old man produced the greatest effect on my
memory. I remember when going there crossing in the carriage a broad ford,
and fear and astonishment of white foaming water has made a vivid
impression. I think memory of events commences abruptly; that is, I
remember these earliest things quite as clearly as others very much later
in life, which were equally impressed on me. Some very early recollections
are connected with fear at Parkfield and with poor Betty Harvey. I
remember with horror her story of people being pushed into the canal by
the towing rope, by going the wrong side of the horse. I had the greatest
horror of this story—keen instinct against death. Some other
recollections are those of vanity—namely, thinking that people were
admiring me, in one instance for perseverance and another for boldness in
climbing a low tree, and what is odder, a consciousness, as if
instinctive, that I was vain, and contempt of myself. My supposed admirer
was old Peter Haile the bricklayer, and the tree the mountain ash on the
lawn. All my recollections seem to be connected most closely with myself;
now Catherine (Catherine Darwin) seems to recollect scenes where others
were the chief actors. When my mother died I was 8 1/2 years old, and
{Catherine} one year less, yet she remembers all particulars and events of
each day whilst I scarcely recollect anything (and so with very many other
cases) except being sent for, the memory of going into her room, my father
meeting me—crying afterwards. I recollect my mother's gown and
scarcely anything of her appearance, except one or two walks with her. I
have no distinct remembrance of any conversation, and those only of a very
trivial nature. I remember her saying "if she did ask me to do something,"
which I said she had, "it was solely for my good."

Catherine remembers my mother crying, when she heard of my grandmother's
death. Also when at Parkfield how Aunt Sarah and Aunt Kitty used to
receive her. Susan, like me, only remembers affairs personal. It is
sufficiently odd this {difference} in subjects remembered. Catherine says
she does not remember the impression made upon her by external things, as
scenery, but for things which she reads she has an excellent memory, i.e.,
for ideas. Now her sympathy being ideal, it is part of her character, and
shows how easily her kind of memory was stamped, a vivid thought is
repeated, a vivid impression forgotten.

I remember obscurely the illumination after the battle of Waterloo, and
the Militia exercising about that period, in the field opposite our house.

1817.

At 8 1/2 years old I went to Mr. Case's School. (Chapter I/3. A day-school
at Shrewsbury kept by Rev. G. Case, minister of the Unitarian Chapel
("Life and Letters," Volume I., page 27 et seq.)) I remember how very much
I was afraid of meeting the dogs in Barker Street, and how at school I
could not get up my courage to fight. I was very timid by nature. I
remember I took great delight at school in fishing for newts in the quarry
pool. I had thus young formed a strong taste for collecting, chiefly
seals, franks, etc., but also pebbles and minerals—one which was
given me by some boy decided this taste. I believe shortly after this, or
before, I had smattered in botany, and certainly when at Mr. Case's School
I was very fond of gardening, and invented some great falsehoods about
being able to colour crocuses as I liked. (Chapter I./4. The story is
given in the "Life and Letters," I., page 28, the details being slightly
different.) At this time I felt very strong friendship for some boys. It
was soon after I began collecting stones, i.e., when 9 or 10, that I
distinctly recollect the desire I had of being able to know something
about every pebble in front of the hall door—it was my earliest and
only geological aspiration at that time. I was in those days a very great
story-teller—for the pure pleasure of exciting attention and
surprise. I stole fruit and hid it for these same motives, and injured
trees by barking them for similar ends. I scarcely ever went out walking
without saying I had seen a pheasant or some strange bird (natural history
taste); these lies, when not detected, I presume, excited my attention, as
I recollect them vividly, not connected with shame, though some I do, but
as something which by having produced a great effect on my mind, gave
pleasure like a tragedy. I recollect when I was at Mr. Case's inventing a
whole fabric to show how fond I was of speaking the TRUTH! My invention is
still so vivid in my mind, that I could almost fancy it was true, did not
memory of former shame tell me it was false. I have no particularly happy
or unhappy recollections of this time or earlier periods of my life. I
remember well a walk I took with a boy named Ford across some fields to a
farmhouse on the Church Stretton road. I do not remember any mental
pursuits excepting those of collecting stones, etc., gardening, and about
this time often going with my father in his carriage, telling him of my
lessons, and seeing game and other wild birds, which was a great delight
to me. I was born a naturalist.

When I was 9 1/2 years old (July 1818) I went with Erasmus to see
Liverpool: it has left no impressions on my mind, except most trifling
ones—fear of the coach upsetting, a good dinner, and an extremely
vague memory of ships.

In Midsummer of this year I went to Dr. Butler's School. (Chapter I./5.
Darwin entered Dr. Butler's school in Shrewsbury in the summer of 1818,
and remained there till 1825 ("Life and Letters," I., page 30).) I well
recollect the first going there, which oddly enough I cannot of going to
Mr. Case's, the first school of all. I remember the year 1818 well, not
from having first gone to a public school, but from writing those figures
in my school book, accompanied with obscure thoughts, now fulfilled,
whether I should recollect in future life that year.

In September (1818) I was ill with the scarlet fever. I well remember the
wretched feeling of being delirious.

1819, July (10 1/2 years old).

Went to the sea at Plas Edwards and stayed there three weeks, which now
appears to me like three months. (Chapter I./6. Plas Edwards, at Towyn, on
the Welsh coast.) I remember a certain shady green road (where I saw a
snake) and a waterfall, with a degree of pleasure, which must be connected
with the pleasure from scenery, though not directly recognised as such.
The sandy plain before the house has left a strong impression, which is
obscurely connected with an indistinct remembrance of curious insects,
probably a Cimex mottled with red, and Zygaena, the burnet-moth. I was at
that time very passionate (when I swore like a trooper) and quarrelsome.
The former passion has I think nearly wholly but slowly died away. When
journeying there by stage coach I remember a recruiting officer (I think I
should know his face to this day) at tea time, asking the maid-servant for
toasted bread and butter. I was convulsed with laughter and thought it the
quaintest and wittiest speech that ever passed from the mouth of man. Such
is wit at 10 1/2 years old. The memory now flashes across me of the
pleasure I had in the evening on a blowy day walking along the beach by
myself and seeing the gulls and cormorants wending their way home in a
wild and irregular course. Such poetic pleasures, felt so keenly in after
years, I should not have expected so early in life.

1820, July.

Went a riding tour (on old Dobbin) with Erasmus to Pistyll Rhiadr (Chapter
I./7. Pistyll Rhiadr proceeds from Llyn Pen Rhiadr down the Llyfnant to
the Dovey.); of this I recollect little, an indistinct picture of the
fall, but I well remember my astonishment on hearing that fishes could
jump up it.

(Chapter I./8. The autobiographical fragment here comes to an end. The
next letters give some account of Darwin as an Edinburgh student. He has
described ("Life and Letters," I., pages 35-45) his failure to be
interested in the official teaching of the University, his horror at the
operating theatre, and his gradually increasing dislike of medical study,
which finally determined his leaving Edinburgh, and entering Cambridge
with a view to taking Orders.)

LETTER 1. TO R.W. DARWIN. Sunday Morning {Edinburgh, October, 1825}.

My dear Father

As I suppose Erasmus (Erasmus Darwin) has given all the particulars of the
journey, I will say no more about it, except that altogether it has cost
me 7 pounds. We got into our lodgings yesterday evening, which are very
comfortable and near the College. Our Landlady, by name Mrs. Mackay, is a
nice clean old body—exceedingly civil and attentive. She lives in
"11, Lothian Street, Edinburgh" (1/1. In a letter printed in the
"Edinburgh Evening Despatch" of May 22nd, 1888, the writer suggested that
a tablet should be placed on the house, 11, Lothian Street. This
suggestion was carried out in 1888 by Mr. Ralph Richardson (Clerk of the
Commissary Court, Edinburgh), who obtained permission from the proprietors
to affix a tablet to the house, setting forth that Charles Darwin resided
there as an Edinburgh University student. We are indebted to Mr. W.K.
Dickson for obtaining for us this information, and to Mr. Ralph Richardson
for kindly supplying us with particulars. See Mr. Richardson's Inaugural
Address, "Trans. Edinb. Geol. Soc." 1894-95; also "Memorable Edinburgh
Houses," by Wilmot Harrison, 1898.), and only four flights of steps from
the ground-floor, which is very moderate to some other lodgings that we
were nearly taking. The terms are 1 pound 6 shillings for two very nice
and LIGHT bedrooms and a sitting-room; by the way, light bedrooms are very
scarce articles in Edinburgh, since most of them are little holes in which
there is neither air nor light. We called on Dr. Hanley the first morning,
whom I think we never should have found, had it not been for a
good-natured Dr. of Divinity who took us into his library and showed us a
map, and gave us directions how to find him. Indeed, all the Scotchmen are
so civil and attentive, that it is enough to make an Englishman ashamed of
himself. I should think Dr. Butler or any other fat English Divine would
take two utter strangers into his library and show them the way! When at
last we found the Doctor, and having made all the proper speeches on both
sides, we all three set out and walked all about the town, which we admire
excessively; indeed Bridge Street is the most extraordinary thing I ever
saw, and when we first looked over the sides, we could hardly believe our
eyes, when instead of a fine river, we saw a stream of people. We spend
all our mornings in promenading about the town, which we know pretty well,
and in the evenings we go to the play to hear Miss Stephens (Probably
Catherine Stephens), which is quite delightful; she is very popular here,
being encored to such a degree, that she can hardly get on with the play.
On Monday we are going to Der F (I do not know how to spell the rest of
the word). (1/2. "Der F" is doubtless "Der Freischutz," which appeared in
1820, and of which a selection was given in London, under Weber's
direction, in 1825. The last of Weber's compositions, "From Chindara's
warbling fount," was written for Miss Stephens, who sang it to his
accompaniment "the last time his fingers touched the key-board." (See
"Dict. of Music," "Stephens" and "Weber.")) Before we got into our
lodgings, we were staying at the Star Hotel in Princes St., where to my
surprise I met with an old schoolfellow, whom I like very much; he is just
come back from a walking tour in Switzerland and is now going to study for
his {degree?} The introductory lectures begin next Wednesday, and we were
matriculated for them on Saturday; we pay 10s., and write our names in a
book, and the ceremony is finished; but the Library is not free to us till
we get a ticket from a Professor. We just have been to Church and heard a
sermon of only 20 minutes. I expected, from Sir Walter Scott's account, a
soul-cutting discourse of 2 hours and a half.

I remain your affectionate son, C. DARWIN.

LETTER 2. TO CAROLINE DARWIN. January 6th, 1826. Edinburgh.

Many thanks for your very entertaining letter, which was a great relief
after hearing a long stupid lecture from Duncan on Materia Medica, but as
you know nothing either of the Lectures or Lecturers, I will give you a
short account of them. Dr. Duncan is so very learned that his wisdom has
left no room for his sense, and he lectures, as I have already said, on
the Materia Medica, which cannot be translated into any word expressive
enough of its stupidity. These few last mornings, however, he has shown
signs of improvement, and I hope he will "go on as well as can be
expected." His lectures begin at eight in the morning. Dr. Hope begins at
ten o'clock, and I like both him and his lectures VERY much (after which
Erasmus goes to "Mr. Sizars on Anatomy," who is a charming Lecturer). At
12 the Hospital, after which I attend Monro on Anatomy. I dislike him and
his lectures so much, that I cannot speak with decency about them. Thrice
a week we have what is called Clinical lectures, which means lectures on
the sick people in the Hospital—these I like very much. I said this
account should be short, but I am afraid it has been too long, like the
lectures themselves.

I will be a good boy and tell something about Johnson again (not but what
I am very much surprised that Papa should so forget himself as call me, a
Collegian in the University of Edinburgh, a boy). He has changed his
lodgings for the third time; he has got very cheap ones, but I am afraid
it will not answer, for they must make up by cheating. I hope you like
Erasmus' official news, he means to begin every letter so. You mentioned
in your letter that Emma was staying with you: if she is not gone, ask her
to tell Jos that I have not succeeded in getting any titanium, but that I
will try again...I want to know how old I shall be next birthday—I
believe 17, and if so, I shall be forced to go abroad for one year, since
it is necessary that I shall have completed my 21st year before I take my
degree. Now you have no business to be frowning and puzzling over this
letter, for I did not promise to write a good hand to you.

LETTER 3. TO J.S. HENSLOW.

(3/1. Extracts from Darwin's letters to Henslow were read before the
Cambridge Philosophical Society on November 16th, 1835. Some of the
letters were subsequently printed, in an 8vo pamphlet of 31 pages, dated
December 1st, 1835, for private distribution among the members of the
Society. A German translation by W. Preyer appeared in the "Deutsche
Rundschau," June 1891.)

{15th August, 1832. Monte Video.}

We are now beating up the Rio Plata, and I take the opportunity of
beginning a letter to you. I did not send off the specimens from Rio
Janeiro, as I grudged the time it would take to pack them up. They are now
ready to be sent off and most probably go by this packet. If so they go to
Falmouth (where Fitz-Roy has made arrangements) and so will not trouble
your brother's agent in London. When I left England I was not fully aware
how essential a kindness you offered me when you undertook to receive my
boxes. I do not know what I should do without such head-quarters. And now
for an apologetical prose about my collection: I am afraid you will say it
is very small, but I have not been idle, and you must recollect what a
very small show hundreds of species make. The box contains a good many
geological specimens; I am well aware that the greater number are too
small. But I maintain that no person has a right to accuse me, till he has
tried carrying rocks under a tropical sun. I have endeavoured to get
specimens of every variety of rock, and have written notes upon all. If
you think it worth your while to examine any of them I shall be very glad
of some mineralogical information, especially on any numbers between 1 and
254 which include Santiago rocks. By my catalogue I shall know which you
may refer to. As for my plants, "pudet pigetque mihi." All I can say is
that when objects are present which I can observe and particularise about,
I cannot summon resolution to collect when I know nothing.

It is positively distressing to walk in the glorious forest amidst such
treasures and feel they are all thrown away upon one. My collection from
the Abrolhos is interesting, as I suspect it nearly contains the whole
flowering vegetation—and indeed from extreme sterility the same may
almost be said of Santiago. I have sent home four bottles with animals in
spirits, I have three more, but would not send them till I had a fourth. I
shall be anxious to hear how they fare. I made an enormous collection of
Arachnidae at Rio, also a good many small beetles in pill boxes, but it is
not the best time of year for the latter. Amongst the lower animals
nothing has so much interested me as finding two species of elegantly
coloured true Planaria inhabiting the dewy forest! The false relation they
bear to snails is the most extraordinary thing of the kind I have ever
seen. In the same genus (or more truly family) some of the marine species
possess an organisation so marvellous that I can scarcely credit my
eyesight. Every one has heard of the discoloured streaks of water in the
equatorial regions. One I examined was owing to the presence of such
minute Oscillariae that in each square inch of surface there must have
been at least one hundred thousand present. After this I had better be
silent, for you will think me a Baron Munchausen amongst naturalists. Most
assuredly I might collect a far greater number of specimens of
Invertebrate animals if I took less time over each; but I have come to the
conclusion that two animals with their original colour and shape noted
down will be more valuable to naturalists than six with only dates and
place. I hope you will send me your criticisms about my collection; and it
will be my endeavour that nothing you say shall be lost on me. I would
send home my writings with my specimens, only I find I have so repeatedly
occasion to refer back that it would be a serious loss to me. I cannot
conclude about my collection without adding that I implicitly trust in
your keeping an exact account against all the expense of boxes, etc., etc.
At this present minute we are at anchor in the mouth of the river, and
such a strange scene as it is. Everything is in flames—the sky with
lightning, the water with luminous particles, and even the very masts are
pointed with a blue flame. I expect great interest in scouring over the
plains of Monte Video, yet I look back with regret to the Tropics, that
magic lure to all naturalists. The delight of sitting on a decaying trunk
amidst the quiet gloom of the forest is unspeakable and never to be
forgotten. How often have I then wished for you. When I see a banana I
well recollect admiring them with you in Cambridge—little did I then
think how soon I should eat their fruit.

August 15th. In a few days the box will go by the "Emulous" packet (Capt.
Cooke) to Falmouth and will be forwarded to you. This letter goes the same
way, so that if in course of due time you do not receive the box, will you
be kind enough to write to Falmouth? We have been here (Monte Video) for
some time; but owing to bad weather and continual fighting on shore, we
have scarcely ever been able to walk in the country. I have collected
during the last month nothing, but to-day I have been out and returned
like Noah's Ark with animals of all sorts. I have to-day to my
astonishment found two Planariae living under dry stones: ask L. Jenyns if
he has ever heard of this fact. I also found a most curious snail, and
spiders, beetles, snakes, scorpions ad libitum, and to conclude shot a
Cavia weighing a cwt.—On Friday we sail for the Rio Negro, and then
will commence our real wild work. I look forward with dread to the wet
stormy regions of the south, but after so much pleasure I must put up with
some sea-sickness and misery.

LETTER 4. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Monte Video, 24th November 1832.

We arrived here on the 24th of October, after our first cruise on the
coast of Patagonia. North of the Rio Negro we fell in with some little
schooners employed in sealing: to save the loss of time in surveying the
intricate mass of banks, Capt. Fitz-Roy has hired two of them and has put
officers on them. It took us nearly a month fitting them out; as soon as
this was finished we came back here, and are now preparing for a long
cruise to the south. I expect to find the wild mountainous country of
Terra del Fuego very interesting, and after the coast of Patagonia I shall
thoroughly enjoy it.—I had hoped for the credit of Dame Nature, no
such country as this last existed; in sad reality we coasted along 240
miles of sand hillocks; I never knew before, what a horrid ugly object a
sand hillock is. The famed country of the Rio Plata in my opinion is not
much better: an enormous brackish river, bounded by an interminable green
plain is enough to make any naturalist groan. So Hurrah for Cape Horn and
the Land of Storms. Now that I have had my growl out, which is a privilege
sailors take on all occasions, I will turn the tables and give an account
of my doing in Nat. History. I must have one more growl: by ill luck the
French Government has sent one of its collectors to the Rio Negro, where
he has been working for the last six months, and is now gone round the
Horn. So that I am very selfishly afraid he will get the cream of all the
good things before me. As I have nobody to talk to about my luck and ill
luck in collecting, I am determined to vent it all upon you. I have been
very lucky with fossil bones; I have fragments of at least 6 distinct
animals: as many of them are teeth, I trust, shattered and rolled as they
have been, they will be recognised. I have paid all the attention I am
capable of to their geological site; but of course it is too long a story
for here. 1st, I have the tarsi and metatarsi very perfect of a Cavia;
2nd, the upper jaw and head of some very large animal with four square
hollow molars and the head greatly protruded in front. I at first thought
it belonged either to the Megalonyx or Megatherium (4/1). The animal may
probably have been Grypotherium Darwini, Ow. The osseous plates mentioned
below must have belonged to one of the Glyptodontidae, and not to
Megatherium. We are indebted to Mr. Kerr for calling our attention to a
passage in Buckland's "Bridgewater Treatise" (Volume II., page 20, note),
where bony armour is ascribed to Megatherium.); in confirmation of this in
the same formation I found a large surface of the osseous polygonal
plates, which "late observations" (what are they?) show belong to the
Megatherium. Immediately I saw this I thought they must belong to an
enormous armadillo, living species of which genus are so abundant here.
3rd, The lower jaw of some large animal which, from the molar teeth, I
should think belonged to the Edentata; 4th, some large molar teeth which
in some respects would seem to belong to an enormous rodent; 5th, also
some smaller teeth belonging to the same order. If it interests you
sufficiently to unpack them, I shall be very curious to hear something
about them. Care must be taken in this case not to confuse the tallies.
They are mingled with marine shells which appear to me identical with what
now exist. But since they were deposited in their beds several geological
changes have taken place in the country. So much for the dead, and now for
the living: there is a poor specimen of a bird which to my
unornithological eyes appears to be a happy mixture of a lark, pigeon and
snipe (No. 710). Mr. MacLeay himself never imagined such an inosculating
creature: I suppose it will turn out to be some well-known bird, although
it has quite baffled me. I have taken some interesting Amphibia; a new
Trigonocephalus beautifully connecting in its habits Crotalus and the
Viperidae, and plenty of new (as far as my knowledge goes) saurians. As
for one little toad, I hope it may be new, that it may be christened
"diabolicus." Milton must allude to this very individual when he talks of
"squat like a toad" (4/2. "...him {Satan} there they {Ithuriel and Zephon}
found, Squat like a toad, close at the ear of Eve" ("Paradise Lost," Book
IV., line 800).

"Formerly Milton's "Paradise Lost" had been my chief favourite, and in my
excursions during the voyage of the 'Beagle,' when I could take only a
single volume, I always chose Milton" ("Autobiography," page 69).); its
colours are by Werner (4/3. Werner's "Nomenclature of Colours," Edinburgh,
1821.) ink black, vermilion red and buff orange. It has been a splendid
cruise for me in Nat. History. Amongst the Pelagic Crustacea, some new and
curious genera. In the Zoophytes some interesting animals. As for one
Flustra, if I had not the specimen to back me up nobody would believe in
its most anomalous structure. But as for novelty all this is nothing to a
family of pelagic animals which at first sight appear like Medusae but are
really highly organised. I have examined them repeatedly, and certainly
from their structure it would be impossible to place them in any existing
order. Perhaps Salpa is the nearest animal, although the transparency of
the body is nearly the only character they have in common. I think the
dried plants nearly contain all which were then (Bahia Blanca) flowering.
All the specimens will be packed in casks. I think there will be three
(before sending this letter I will specify dates, etc., etc.). I am afraid
you will groan or rather the floor of the lecture room will when the casks
arrive. Without you I should be utterly undone. The small cask contains
fish: will you open it to see how the spirit has stood the evaporation of
the Tropics. On board the ship everything goes on as well as possible; the
only drawback is the fearful length of time between this and the day of
our return. I do not see any limits to it. One year is nearly completed
and the second will be so, before we even leave the east coast of S.
America. And then our voyage may be said really to have commenced. I know
not how I shall be able to endure it. The frequency with which I think of
all the happy hours I have spent at Shrewsbury and Cambridge is rather
ominous—I trust everything to time and fate and will feel my way as
I go on.

November 24th.—We have been at Buenos Ayres for a week; it is a fine
large city, but such a country, everything is mud, you can go nowhere, you
can do nothing for mud. In the city I obtained much information about the
banks of the Uruguay—I hear of limestone with shells, and beds of
shells in every direction. I hope when we winter in the Plata to have a
most interesting geological excursion into that country: I purchased
fragments (Nos. 837-8) of some enormous bones, which I was assured
belonged to the former giants!! I also procured some seeds—I do not
know whether they are worth your accepting; if you think so I will get
some more. They are in the box. I have sent to you by the "Duke of York"
packet, commanded by Lieut. Snell, to Falmouth two large casks containing
fossil bones, a small cask with fish and a box containing skins, spirit
bottle, etc., and pill-boxes with beetles. Would you be kind enough to
open these latter as they are apt to become mouldy. With the exception of
the bones the rest of my collection looks very scanty. Recollect how great
a proportion of time is spent at sea. I am always anxious to hear in what
state the things come and any criticisms about quantity or kind of
specimens. In the smaller cask is part of a large head, the anterior
portions of which are in the other large one. The packet has arrived and I
am in a great bustle. You will not hear from me for some months.

LETTER 5. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Valparaiso, July 24th 1834.

A box has just arrived in which were two of your most kind and
affectionate letters. You do not know how happy they have made me. One is
dated December 15th, 1833, the other January 15th of the same year! By
what fatality it did not arrive sooner I cannot conjecture; I regret it
much, for it contains the information I most wanted, about manner of
packing, etc., etc.: roots with specimens of plants, etc., etc. This I
suppose was written after the reception of my first cargo of specimens.
Not having heard from you until March of this year I really began to think
that my collections were so poor, that you were puzzled what to say; the
case is now quite on the opposite tack; for you are guilty of exciting all
my vain feelings to a most comfortable pitch; if hard work will atone for
these thoughts, I vow it shall not be spared. It is rather late, but I
will allude to some remarks in the January letter; you advise me to send
home duplicates of my notes; I have been aware of the advantage of doing
so; but then at sea to this day, I am invariably sick, excepting on the
finest days, at which times with pelagic animals around me, I could never
bring myself to the task—on shore the most prudent person could
hardly expect such a sacrifice of time. My notes are becoming bulky. I
have about 600 small quarto pages full; about half of this is Geology—the
other imperfect descriptions of animals; with the latter I make it a rule
only to describe those parts or facts, which cannot be seen in specimens
in spirits. I keep my private Journal distinct from the above. (N.B. this
letter is a most untidy one, but my mind is untidy with joy; it is your
fault, so you must take the consequences.) With respect to the land
Planariae, unquestionably they are not molluscous animals. I read your
letters last night, this morning I took a little walk; by a curious
coincidence, I found a new white species of Planaria, and a new to me
Vaginulus (third species which I have found in S. America) of Cuvier.
Amongst the marine mollusques I have seen a good many genera, and at Rio
found one quite new one. With respect to the December letter, I am very
glad to hear the four casks arrived safe; since which time you have
received another cargo, with the bird skins about which you did not
understand me. Have any of the B. Ayrean seeds produced plants? From the
Falklands I acknowledged a box and letter from you; with the letter were a
few seeds from Patagonia. At present I have specimens enough to make a
heavy cargo, but shall wait as much longer as possible, because
opportunities are not now so good as before. I have just got scent of some
fossil bones of a MAMMOTH; what they may be I do not know, but if gold or
galloping will get them they shall be mine. You tell me you like hearing
how I am going on and what doing, and you well may imagine how much I
enjoy speaking to any one upon subjects which I am always thinking about,
but never have any one to talk to {about}. After leaving the Falklands we
proceeded to the Rio S. Cruz, following up the river till within twenty
miles of the Cordilleras. Unfortunately want of provisions compelled us to
return. This expedition was most important to me as it was a transverse
section of the great Patagonian formation. I conjecture (an accurate
examination of fossils may possibly determine the point) that the main bed
is somewhere about the Miocene period (using Mr. Lyell's expression); I
judge from what I have seen of the present shells of Patagonia. This bed
contains an ENORMOUS field of lava. This is of some interest, as being a
rude approximation to the age of the volcanic part of the great range of
the Andes. Long before this it existed as a slate and porphyritic line of
hills. I have collected a tolerable quantity of information respecting the
period and forms of elevations of these plains. I think these will be
interesting to Mr. Lyell; I had deferred reading his third volume till my
return: you may guess how much pleasure it gave me; some of his woodcuts
came so exactly into play that I have only to refer to them instead of
redrawing similar ones. I had my barometer with me, I only wish I had used
it more in these plains. The valley of S. Cruz appears to me a very
curious one; at first it quite baffled me. I believe I can show good
reasons for supposing it to have been once a northern straits like to that
of Magellan. When I return to England you will have some hard work in
winnowing my Geology; what little I know I have learnt in such a curious
fashion that I often feel very doubtful about the number of grains {of
value?}. Whatever number they may turn out, I have enjoyed extreme
pleasure in collecting them. In T. del Fuego I collected and examined some
corallines; I have observed one fact which quite startled me: it is that
in the genus Sertularia (taken in its most restricted form as {used} by
Lamoureux) and in two species which, excluding comparative expressions, I
should find much difficulty in describing as different, the polypi quite
and essentially differed in all their most important and evident parts of
structure. I have already seen enough to be convinced that the present
families of corallines as arranged by Lamarck, Cuvier, etc., are highly
artificial. It appears that they are in the same state {in} which shells
were when Linnaeus left them for Cuvier to rearrange. I do so wish I was a
better hand at dissecting, I find I can do very little in the minute parts
of structure; I am forced to take a very rough examination as a type for
different classes of structure. It is most extraordinary I can nowhere see
in my books one single description of the polypus of any one coralline
excepting Alcyonium Lobularia of Savigny. I found a curious little stony
Cellaria (5/1. Cellaria, a genus of Bryozoa, placed in the section
Flustrina of the Suborder Chilostomata.) (a new genus) each cell provided
with long toothed bristle, these are capable of various and rapid motions.
This motion is often simultaneous, and can be produced by irritation. This
fact, as far as I can see, is quite isolated in the history of zoophytes
(excepting the Flustra with an organ like a vulture's head); it points out
a much more intimate relation between the polypi than Lamarck is willing
to allow. I forgot whether I mentioned having seen something of the manner
of propagation in that most ambiguous family, the corallines; I feel
pretty well convinced if they are not plants they are not zoophytes. The
"gemmule" of a Halimeda contained several articulations united, ready to
burst their envelope, and become attached to some basis. I believe in
zoophytes universally the gemmule produces a single polypus, which
afterwards or at the same time grows with its cell or single articulation.

The "Beagle" left the Sts. of Magellan in the middle of winter; she found
her road out by a wild unfrequented channel; well might Sir J. Narborough
call the west coast South Desolation, "because it is so desolate a land to
behold." We were driven into Chiloe by some very bad weather. An
Englishman gave me three specimens of that very fine Lucanoidal insect
which is described in the "Camb. Phil. Trans." (5/2. "Description of
Chiasognathus Grantii, a new Lucanideous Insect, etc." by J.F. Stephens
("Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc." Volume IV., page 209, 1833.)), two males and
one female. I find Chiloe is composed of lava and recent deposits. The
lavas are curious from abounding in, or rather being in parts composed of
pitchstone. If we go to Chiloe in the summer, I shall reap an
entomological harvest. I suppose the Botany both there and in Chili is
well-known.

I forgot to state that in the four cargoes of specimens there have been
sent three square boxes, each containing four glass bottles. I mention
this in case they should be stowed beneath geological specimens and thus
escape your notice, perhaps some spirit may be wanted in them. If a box
arrives from B. Ayres with a Megatherium head the other unnumbered
specimens, be kind enough to tell me, as I have strong fears for its
safety. We arrived here the day before yesterday; the views of the distant
mountains are most sublime and the climate delightful; after our long
cruise in the damp gloomy climates of the south, to breathe a clear dry
air and feel honest warm sunshine, and eat good fresh roast beef must be
the summum bonum of human life. I do not like the look of the rocks half
so much as the beef, there is too much of those rather insipid
ingredients, mica, quartz and feldspar. Our plans are at present
undecided; there is a good deal of work to the south of Valparaiso and to
the north an indefinite quantity. I look forward to every part with
interest. I have sent you in this letter a sad dose of egotism, but
recollect I look up to you as my father in Natural History, and a son may
talk about himself to his father. In your paternal capacity as proproctor
what a great deal of trouble you appear to have had. How turbulent
Cambridge is become. Before this time it will have regained its
tranquillity. I have a most schoolboy-like wish to be there, enjoying my
holidays. It is a most comfortable reflection to me, that a ship being
made of wood and iron, cannot last for ever, and therefore this voyage
must have an end.

October 28th. This letter has been lying in my portfolio ever since July;
I did not send it away because I did not think it worth the postage; it
shall now go with a box of specimens. Shortly after arriving here I set
out on a geological excursion, and had a very pleasant ramble about the
base of the Andes. The whole country appears composed of breccias (and I
imagine slates) which universally have been modified and oftentimes
completely altered by the action of fire. The varieties of porphyry thus
produced are endless, but nowhere have I yet met with rocks which have
flowed in a stream; dykes of greenstone are very numerous. Modern volcanic
action is entirely shut up in the very central parts (which cannot now be
reached on account of the snow) of the Cordilleras. In the south of the R.
Maypu I examined the Tertiary plains, already partially described by M.
Gay. (5/3. "Rapport fait a l'Academie Royale des Sciences, sur les Travaux
Geologiques de M. Gay," by Alex. Brongniart ("Ann. Sci. Nat." Volume
XXVIII., page 394, 1833.) The fossil shells appear to me to be far more
different from the recent ones than in the great Patagonian formation; it
will be curious if an Eocene and Miocene (recent there is abundance of)
could be proved to exist in S. America as well as in Europe. I have been
much interested by finding abundance of recent shells at an elevation of
1,300 feet; the country in many places is scattered over with shells but
these are all littoral ones. So that I suppose the 1,300 feet elevation
must be owing to a succession of small elevations such as in 1822. With
these certain proofs of the recent residence of the ocean over all the
lower parts of Chili, the outline of every view and the form of each
valley possesses a high interest. Has the action of running water or the
sea formed this deep ravine? was a question which often arose in my mind
and generally was answered by finding a bed of recent shells at the
bottom. I have not sufficient arguments, but I do not believe that more
than a small fraction of the height of the Andes has been formed within
the Tertiary period. The conclusion of my excursion was very unfortunate,
I became unwell and could hardly reach this place. I have been in bed for
the last month, but am now rapidly getting well. I had hoped during this
time to have made a good collection of insects but it has been impossible:
I regret the less because Chiloe fairly swarms with collectors; there are
more naturalists in the country, than carpenters or shoemakers or any
other honest trade.

In my letter from the Falkland Islands I said I had fears about a box with
a Megatherium. I have since heard from B. Ayres that it went to Liverpool
by the brig "Basingwaithe." If you have not received it, it is I think
worth taking some trouble about. In October two casks and a jar were sent
by H.M.S. "Samarang" via Portsmouth. I have no doubt you have received
them. With this letter I send a good many bird skins; in the same box with
them, there is a paper parcel containing pill boxes with insects. The
other pill boxes require no particular care. You will see in two of these
boxes some dried Planariae (terrestrial), the only method I have found of
preserving them (they are exceedingly brittle). By examining the white
species I understand some little of the internal structure. There are two
small parcels of seeds. There are some plants which I hope may interest
you, or at least those from Patagonia where I collected every one in
flower. There is a bottle clumsily but I think securely corked containing
water and gas from the hot baths of Cauquenes seated at foot of Andes and
long celebrated for medicinal properties. I took pains in filling and
securing both water and gas. If you can find any one who likes to analyze
them, I should think it would be worth the trouble. I have not time at
present to copy my few observations about the locality, etc., etc., {of}
these springs. Will you tell me how the Arachnidae which I have sent home,
for instance those from Rio, appear to be preserved. I have doubts whether
it is worth while collecting them.

We sail the day after to-morrow: our plans are at last limited and
definite; I am delighted to say we have bid an eternal adieu to T. del
Fuego. The "Beagle" will not proceed further south than C. Tres Montes;
from which point we survey to the north. The Chonos Archipelago is
delightfully unknown: fine deep inlets running into the Cordilleras—where
we can steer by the light of a volcano. I do not know which part of the
voyage now offers the most attractions. This is a shamefully untidy
letter, but you must forgive me.

LETTER 6. TO J.S. HENSLOW. April 18th, 1835. Valparaiso.

I have just returned from Mendoza, having crossed the Cordilleras by two
passes. This trip has added much to my knowledge of the geology of the
country. Some of the facts, of the truth of which I in my own mind feel
fully convinced, will appear to you quite absurd and incredible. I will
give a very short sketch of the structure of these huge mountains. In the
Portillo pass (the more southern one) travellers have described the
Cordilleras to consist of a double chain of nearly equal altitude
separated by a considerable interval. This is the case; and the same
structure extends to the northward to Uspallata; the little elevation of
the eastern line (here not more than 6,000-7,000 feet.) has caused it
almost to be overlooked. To begin with the western and principal chain, we
have, where the sections are best seen, an enormous mass of a porphyritic
conglomerate resting on granite. This latter rock seems to form the
nucleus of the whole mass, and is seen in the deep lateral valleys,
injected amongst, upheaving, overturning in the most extraordinary manner,
the overlying strata. The stratification in all the mountains is
beautifully distinct and from a variety in the colour can be seen at great
distances. I cannot imagine any part of the world presenting a more
extraordinary scene of the breaking up of the crust of the globe than the
very central parts of the Andes. The upheaval has taken place by a great
number of (nearly) N. and S. lines; which in most cases have formed as
many anticlinal and synclinal ravines; the strata in the highest pinnacles
are almost universally inclined at an angle from 70 deg to 80 deg. I
cannot tell you how I enjoyed some of these views—it is worth coming
from England, once to feel such intense delight; at an elevation from 10
to 12,000 feet there is a transparency in the air, and a confusion of
distances and a sort of stillness which gives the sensation of being in
another world, and when to this is joined the picture so plainly drawn of
the great epochs of violence, it causes in the mind a most strange
assemblage of ideas.

The formation I call Porphyritic Conglomerates is the most important and
most developed one in Chili: from a great number of sections I find it a
true coarse conglomerate or breccia, which by every step in a slow
gradation passes into a fine claystone-porphyry; the pebbles and cement
becoming porphyritic till at last all is blended in one compact rock. The
porphyries are excessively abundant in this chain. I feel sure at least
4/5ths of them have been thus produced from sedimentary beds in situ.
There are porphyries which have been injected from below amongst strata,
and others ejected, which have flowed in streams; it is remarkable, and I
could show specimens of this rock produced in these three methods, which
cannot be distinguished. It is a great mistake considering the Cordilleras
here as composed of rocks which have flowed in streams. In this range I
nowhere saw a fragment, which I believe to have thus originated, although
the road passes at no great distance from the active volcanoes. The
porphyries, conglomerate, sandstone and quartzose sandstone and limestones
alternate and pass into each other many times, overlying (where not broken
through by the granite) clay-slate. In the upper parts, the sandstone
begins to alternate with gypsum, till at last we have this substance of a
stupendous thickness. I really think the formation is in some places (it
varies much) nearly 2,000 feet thick, it occurs often with a green
(epidote?) siliceous sandstone and snow-white marble; it resembles that
found in the Alps in containing large concretions of a crystalline marble
of a blackish grey colour. The upper beds which form some of the higher
pinnacles consist of layers of snow-white gypsum and red compact
sandstone, from the thickness of paper to a few feet, alternating in an
endless round. The rock has a most curiously painted appearance. At the
pass of the Peuquenes in this formation, where however a black rock like
clay-slate, without many laminae, occurring with a pale limestone, has
replaced the red sandstone, I found abundant impressions of shells. The
elevation must be between 12 and 13,000 feet. A shell which I believe is
the Gryphaea is the most abundant—an Ostrea, Turratella, Ammonites,
small bivalves, Terebratulae (?). Perhaps some good conchologist (6/1.
Some of these genera are mentioned by Darwin ("Geol. Obs." page 181) as
having been named for him by M. D'Orbigny.) will be able to give a guess,
to what grand division of the formations of Europe these organic remains
bear most resemblance. They are exceedingly imperfect and few. It was late
in the season and the situation particularly dangerous for snow-storms. I
did not dare to delay, otherwise a grand harvest might have been reaped.
So much for the western line; in the Portillo pass, proceeding eastward,
we meet an immense mass of conglomerate, dipping to the west 45 deg, which
rest on micaceous sandstone, etc., etc., upheaved and converted into
quartz-rock penetrated by dykes from the very grand mass of protogine
(large crystals of quartz, red feldspar, and occasional little chlorite).
Now this conglomerate which reposes on and dips from the protogene 45 deg
consists of the peculiar rocks of the first described chain, pebbles of
the black rock with shells, green sandstone, etc., etc. It is hence
manifest that the upheaval (and deposition at least of part) of the grand
eastern chain is entirely posterior to the western. To the north in the
Uspallata pass, we have also a fact of the same class. Bear this in mind:
it will help to make you believe what follows. I have said the Uspallata
range is geologically, although only 6,000-7,000 feet, a continuation of
the grand eastern chain. It has its nucleus of granite, consists of grand
beds of various crystalline rocks, which I can feel no doubt are
subaqueous lavas alternating with sandstone, conglomerates and white
aluminous beds (like decomposed feldspar) with many other curious
varieties of sedimentary deposits. These lavas and sandstones alterate
very many times, and are quite conformable one to the other. During two
days of careful examination I said to myself at least fifty times, how
exactly like (only rather harder) these beds are to those of the upper
Tertiary strata of Patagonia, Chiloe and Concepcion, without the possible
identity ever having occurred to me. At last there was no resisting the
conclusion. I could not expect shells, for they never occur in this
formation; but lignite or carbonaceous shale ought to be found. I had
previously been exceedingly puzzled by meeting in the sandstone, thin
layers (few inches to feet thick) of a brecciated pitchstone. I strongly
suspect the underlying granite has altered such beds into this pitchstone.
The silicified wood (particularly characteristic) was yet absent. The
conviction that I was on the Tertiary strata was so strong by this time in
my mind, that on the third day in the midst of lavas and {? masses} of
granite I began my apparently forlorn hunt. How do you think I succeeded?
In an escarpement of compact greenish sandstone, I found a small wood of
petrified trees in a vertical position, or rather the strata were inclined
about 20-30 deg to one point and the trees 70 deg to the opposite one.
That is, they were before the tilt truly vertical. The sandstone consists
of many layers, and is marked by the concentric lines of the bark (I have
specimens); 11 are perfectly silicified and resemble the dicotyledonous
wood which I have found at Chiloe and Concepcion (6/2. "Geol. Obs." page
202. Specimens of the silicified wood were examined by Robert Brown, and
determined by him as coniferous, "partaking of the characters of the
Araucarian tribe, with some curious points of affinity with the yew.");
the others (30-40) I only know to be trees from the analogy of form and
position; they consist of snow-white columns (like Lot's wife) of coarsely
crystalline carb. of lime. The largest shaft is 7 feet. They are all close
together, within 100 yards, and about the same level: nowhere else could I
find any. It cannot be doubted that the layers of fine sandstone have
quietly been deposited between a clump of trees which were fixed by their
roots. The sandstone rests on lava, is covered by a great bed apparently
about 1,000 feet thick of black augitic lava, and over this there are at
least 5 grand alternations of such rocks and aqueous sedimentary deposits,
amounting in thickness to several thousand feet. I am quite afraid of the
only conclusion which I can draw from this fact, namely that there must
have been a depression in the surface of the land to that amount. But
neglecting this consideration, it was a most satisfactory support of my
presumption of the Tertiary (I mean by Tertiary, that the shells of the
period were closely allied, or some identical, to those which now live, as
in the lower beds of Patagonia) age of this eastern chain. A great part of
the proof must remain upon my ipse dixit of a mineralogical resemblance
with those beds whose age is known, and the character of which resemblance
is to be subject to infinite variation, passing from one variety to
another by a concretionary structure. I hardly expect you to believe me,
when it is a consequence of this view that granite, which forms peaks of a
height probably of 14,000 feet, has been fluid in the Tertiary period;
that strata of that period are altered by its heat, and are traversed by
dykes from the mass. That these strata have also probably undergone an
immense depression, that they are now inclined at high angles and form
regular or complicated anticlinal lines. To complete the climax and seal
your disbelief, these same sedimentary strata and lavas are traversed by
VERY NUMEROUS, true metallic veins of iron, copper, arsenic, silver and
gold, and these can be traced to the underlying granite. A gold mine has
been worked close to the clump of silicified trees. If when you see my
specimens, sections and account, you should think that there is pretty
strong presumptive evidence of the above facts, it appears very important;
for the structure, and size of this chain will bear comparison with any in
the world, and that this all should have been produced in so very recent a
period is indeed wonderful. In my own mind I am quite convinced of the
reality of this. I can anyhow most conscientiously say that no previously
formed conjecture warped my judgment. As I have described so did I
actually observe the facts. But I will have some mercy and end this most
lengthy account of my geological trip.

On some of the large patches of perpetual snow, I found the famous red
snow of the Arctic countries; I send with this letter my observations and
a piece of paper on which I tried to dry some specimens. If the fact is
new and you think it worth while, either yourself examine them or send
them to whoever has described the specimens from the north and publish a
notice in any of the periodicals. I also send a small bottle with two
lizards, one of them is viviparous as you will see by the accompanying
notice. A M. Gay—a French naturalist—has already published in
one of the newspapers of this country a similar statement and probably has
forwarded to Paris some account; as the fact appears singular would it not
be worth while to hand over the specimens to some good lizardologist and
comparative anatomist to publish an account of their internal structure?
Do what you think fit.

This letter will go with a cargo of specimens from Coquimbo. I shall write
to let you know when they are sent off. In the box there are two bags of
seeds, one {from the} valleys of the Cordilleras 5,000-10,000 feet high,
the soil and climate exceedingly dry, soil very light and stony, extremes
in temperature; the other chiefly from the dry sandy Traversia of Mendoza
3,000 feet more or less. If some of the bushes should grow but not be
healthy, try a slight sprinkling of salt and saltpetre. The plain is
saliferous. All the flowers in the Cordilleras appear to be autumnal
flowerers—they were all in blow and seed, many of them very pretty.
I gathered them as I rode along on the hill sides. If they will but choose
to come up, I have no doubt many would be great rarities. In the Mendoza
bag there are the seeds or berries of what appears to be a small potato
plant with a whitish flower. They grow many leagues from where any
habitation could ever have existed owing to absence of water. Amongst the
Chonos dried plants, you will see a fine specimen of the wild potato,
growing under a most opposite climate, and unquestionably a true wild
potato. It must be a distinct species from that of the Lower Cordilleras
one. Perhaps as with the banana, distinct species are now not to be
distinguished in their varieties produced by cultivation. I cannot copy
out the few remarks about the Chonos potato. With the specimens there is a
bundle of old papers and notebooks. Will you take care of them; in case I
should lose my notes, these might be useful. I do not send home any
insects because they must be troublesome to you, and now so little more of
the voyage remains unfinished I can well take charge of them. In two or
three days I set out for Coquimbo by land; the "Beagle" calls for me in
the beginning of June. So that I have six weeks more to enjoy geologising
over these curious mountains of Chili. There is at present a bloody
revolution in Peru. The Commodore has gone there, and in the hurry has
carried our letters with him; perhaps amongst them there will be one from
you. I wish I had the old Commodore here, I would shake some consideration
for others into his old body. From Coquimbo you will again hear from me.

LETTER 7. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Lima, July 12th, 1835.

This is the last letter which I shall ever write to you from the shores of
America, and for this reason I send it. In a few days time the "Beagle"
will sail for the Galapagos Islands. I look forward with joy and interest
to this, both as being somewhat nearer to England and for the sake of
having a good look at an active volcano. Although we have seen lava in
abundance, I have never yet beheld the crater. I sent by H.M.S. "Conway"
two large boxes of specimens. The "Conway" sailed the latter end of June.
With them were letters for you, since that time I have travelled by land
from Valparaiso to Copiapo and seen something more of the Cordilleras.
Some of my geological views have been, subsequently to the last letter,
altered. I believe the upper mass of strata is not so very modern as I
supposed. This last journey has explained to me much of the ancient
history of the Cordilleras. I feel sure they formerly consisted of a chain
of volcanoes from which enormous streams of lava were poured forth at the
bottom of the sea. These alternate with sedimentary beds to a vast
thickness; at a subsequent period these volcanoes must have formed
islands, from which have been produced strata of several thousand feet
thick of coarse conglomerate. (7/1. See "Geological Observations on South
America" (London, 1846), Chapter VII.: "Central Chile; Structure of the
Cordillera.") These islands were covered with fine trees; in the
conglomerate, I found one 15 feet in circumference perfectly silicified to
the very centre. The alternations of compact crystalline rocks (I cannot
doubt subaqueous lavas), and sedimentary beds, now upheaved fractured and
indurated, form the main range of the Andes. The formation was produced at
the time when ammonites, gryphites, oysters, Pecten, Mytilus, etc., etc.,
lived. In the central parts of Chili the structure of the lower beds is
rendered very obscure by the metamorphic action which has rendered even
the coarsest conglomerates porphyritic. The Cordilleras of the Andes so
worthy of admiration from the grandeur of their dimensions, rise in
dignity when it is considered that since the period of ammonites, they
have formed a marked feature in the geography of the globe. The geology of
these mountains pleased me in one respect; when reading Lyell, it had
always struck me that if the crust of the world goes on changing in a
circle, there ought to be somewhere found formations which, having the age
of the great European Secondary beds, should possess the structure of
Tertiary rocks or those formed amidst islands and in limited basins. Now
the alternations of lava and coarse sediment which form the upper parts of
the Andes, correspond exactly to what would accumulate under such
circumstances. In consequence of this, I can only very roughly separate
into three divisions the varying strata (perhaps 8,000 feet thick) which
compose these mountains. I am afraid you will tell me to learn my ABC to
know quartz from feldspar before I indulge in such speculations. I lately
got hold of a report on M. Dessalines D'Orbigny's labours in S. America
(7/2. "Voyage dans l'Amerique Meridionale, etc." (A. Dessalines
D'Orbigny).); I experienced rather a debasing degree of vexation to find
he has described the Geology of the Pampas, and that I have had some hard
riding for nothing, it was however gratifying that my conclusions are the
same, as far as I can collect, with his results. It is also capital that
the whole of Bolivia will be described. I hope to be able to connect his
geology of that country with mine of Chili. After leaving Copiapo, we
touched at Iquique. I visited but do not quite understand the position of
the nitrate of soda beds. Here in Peru, from the state of anarchy, I can
make no expedition.

I hear from home, that my brother is going to send me a box with books,
and a letter from you. It is very unfortunate that I cannot receive this
before we reach Sydney, even if it ever gets safely so far. I shall not
have another opportunity for many months of again writing to you. Will you
have the charity to send me one more letter (as soon as this reaches you)
directed to the C. of Good Hope. Your letters besides affording me the
greatest delight always give me a fresh stimulus for exertion. Excuse this
geological prosy letter, and farewell till you hear from me at Sydney, and
see me in the autumn of 1836.

LETTER 8. TO JOSIAH WEDGWOOD. {Shrewsbury, October 5th, 1836.}

My dear Uncle

The "Beagle" arrived at Falmouth on Sunday evening, and I reached home
late last night. My head is quite confused with so much delight, but I
cannot allow my sisters to tell you first how happy I am to see all my
dear friends again. I am obliged to return in three or four days to
London, where the "Beagle" will be paid off, and then I shall pay
Shrewsbury a longer visit. I am most anxious once again to see Maer, and
all its inhabitants, so that in the course of two or three weeks, I hope
in person to thank you, as being my first Lord of the Admiralty. (8/1.)
Readers of the "Life and Letters" will remember that it was to Josiah
Wedgwood that Darwin owed the great opportunity of his life ("Life and
Letters," Volume I., page 59), and it was fitting that he should report
himself to his "first Lord of the Admiralty." The present letter clears up
a small obscurity to which Mr. Poulton has called attention ("Charles
Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," "Century" Series, 1896, page
25). Writing to Fitz-Roy from Shrewsbury on October 6th, Darwin says, "I
arrived here yesterday morning at breakfast time." This refers to his
arrival at his father's house, after having slept at the inn. The date of
his arrival in Shrewsbury was, therefore, October 4th, as given in the
"Life and Letters," I., page 272.) The entries in his Diary are:—October
2, 1831. Took leave of my home. October 4, 1836. Reached Shrewsbury after
absence of 5 years and 2 days.) I am so very happy I hardly know what I am
writing. Believe me your most affectionate nephew,

CHAS. DARWIN.

LETTER 9. TO C. LYELL. Shrewsbury, Monday {November 12th, 1838}.

My dear Lyell

I suppose you will be in Hart St. (9/1. Sir Charles Lyell lived at 16,
Hart Street, Bloomsbury.) to-morrow {or} the 14th. I write because I
cannot avoid wishing to be the first person to tell Mrs. Lyell and
yourself, that I have the very good, and shortly since {i.e. until lately}
very unexpected fortune of going to be married! The lady is my cousin Miss
Emma Wedgwood, the sister of Hensleigh Wedgwood, and of the elder brother
who married my sister, so we are connected by manifold ties, besides on my
part, by the most sincere love and hearty gratitude to her for accepting
such a one as myself.

I determined when last at Maer to try my chance, but I hardly expected
such good fortune would turn up for me. I shall be in town in the middle
or latter end of the ensuing week. (9/2. Mr. Darwin was married on January
29th, 1839 (see "Life and Letters," I., page 299). The present letter was
written the day after he had become engaged.) I fear you will say I might
very well have left my story untold till we met. But I deeply feel your
kindness and friendship towards me, which in truth I may say, has been one
chief source of happiness to me, ever since my return to England: so you
must excuse me. I am well sure that Mrs. Lyell, who has sympathy for every
one near her, will give me her hearty congratulations.

...I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed my Maer visit,—I felt in
anticipation my future tranquil life: how I do hope you may be as happy as
I know I shall be: but it frightens me, as often as I think of what a
family you have been one of. I was thinking this morning how it came, that
I, who am fond of talking and am scarcely ever out of spirits, should so
entirely rest my notions of happiness on quietness, and a good deal of
solitude: but I believe the explanation is very simple and I mention it
because it will give you hopes, that I shall gradually grow less of a
brute, it is that during the five years of my voyage (and indeed I may add
these two last) which from the active manner in which they have been
passed, may be said to be the commencement of my real life, the whole of
my pleasure was derived from what passed in my mind, while admiring views
by myself, travelling across the wild deserts or glorious forests or
pacing the deck of the poor little "Beagle" at night. Excuse this much
egotism,—I give it you because I think you will humanize me, and
soon teach me there is greater happiness than building theories and
accumulating facts in silence and solitude. My own dearest Emma, I
earnestly pray, you may never regret the great, and I will add very good,
deed, you are to perform on the Tuesday: my own dear future wife, God
bless you...The Lyells called on me to-day after church; as Lyell was so
full of geology he was obliged to disgorge,—and I dine there on
Tuesday for an especial confidence. I was quite ashamed of myself to-day,
for we talked for half an hour, unsophisticated geology, with poor Mrs.
Lyell sitting by, a monument of patience. I want practice in ill-treatment
the female sex,—I did not observe Lyell had any compunction; I hope
to harden my conscience in time: few husbands seem to find it difficult to
effect this. Since my return I have taken several looks, as you will
readily believe, into the drawing-room; I suppose my taste {for}
harmonious colours is already deteriorated, for I declare the room begins
to look less ugly. I take so much pleasure in the house (10/1. No. 12,
Upper Gower Street, is now No. 110, Gower Street, and forms part of a
block inhabited by Messrs. Shoolbred's employes. We are indebted, for this
information, to Mr. Wheatley, of the Society of Arts.), I declare I am
just like a great overgrown child with a new toy; but then, not like a
real child, I long to have a co-partner and possessor.

(10/2. The following passage is taken from the MS. copy of the
"Autobiography;" it was not published in the "Life and Letters" which
appeared in Mrs. Darwin's lifetime:—)

You all know your mother, and what a good mother she has ever been to all
of you. She has been my greatest blessing, and I can declare that in my
whole life I have never heard her utter one word I would rather have been
unsaid. She has never failed in kindest sympathy towards me, and has borne
with the utmost patience my frequent complaints of ill-health and
discomfort. I do not believe she has ever missed an opportunity of doing a
kind action to any one near her. I marvel at my good fortune that she, so
infinitely my superior in every single moral quality, consented to be my
wife. She has been my wise adviser and cheerful comforter throughout life,
which without her would have been during a very long period a miserable
one from ill-health. She has earned the love of every soul near her.

LETTER 11. C. LYELL TO C. DARWIN. {July?, 1841?}.

(11/1. Lyell started on his first visit to the United States in July,
1841, and was absent thirteen months. Darwin returned to London July 23rd,
1841, after a prolonged absence; he may, therefore, have missed seeing
Lyell. Assuming the date 1841 to be correct, it would seem that the plan
of living in the country was formed a year before it was actually carried
out.)

I have no doubt that your father did rightly in persuading you to stay {at
Shrewsbury}, but we were much disappointed in not seeing you before our
start for a year's absence. I cannot tell you how often since your long
illness I have missed the friendly intercourse which we had so frequently
before, and on which I built more than ever after your marriage. It will
not happen easily that twice in one's life, even in the large world of
London, a congenial soul so occupied with precisely the same pursuits and
with an independence enabling him to pursue them will fall so nearly in my
way, and to have had it snatched from me with the prospect of your
residence somewhat far off is a privation I feel as a very great one. I
hope you will not, like Herschell, get far off from a railway.

LETTER 12. TO CATHERINE DARWIN.

(12/1. The following letter was written to his sister Catherine about two
months before Charles Darwin settled at Down:—)

Sunday {July 1842}.

You must have been surprised at not having heard sooner about the house.
Emma and I only returned yesterday afternoon from sleeping there. I will
give you in detail, as my father would like, MY opinion on it—Emma's
slightly differs. Position:—about 1/4 of a mile from the small
village of Down in Kent—16 miles from St. Paul's—8 1/2 miles
from station (with many trains) which station is only 10 from London. This
is bad, as the drive from {i.e. on account of} the hills is long. I
calculate we are two hours going from London Bridge. Village about forty
houses with old walnut trees in the middle where stands an old flint
church and the lanes meet. Inhabitants very respectable—infant
school—grown up people great musicians—all touch their hats as
in Wales and sit at their open doors in the evening; no high road leads
through the village. The little pot-house where we slept is a grocer's
shop, and the landlord is the carpenter—so you may guess the style
of the village. There are butcher and baker and post-office. A carrier
goes weekly to London and calls anywhere for anything in London and takes
anything anywhere. On the road {from London} to the village, on a fine day
the scenery is absolutely beautiful: from close to our house the view is
very distant and rather beautiful, but the house being situated on a
rather high tableland has somewhat of a desolate air. There is a most
beautiful old farm-house, with great thatched barns and old stumps of oak
trees, like that of Skelton, one field off. The charm of the place to me
is that almost every field is intersected (as alas is ours) by one or more
foot-paths. I never saw so many walks in any other county. The country is
extraordinarily rural and quiet with narrow lanes and high hedges and
hardly any ruts. It is really surprising to think London is only 16 miles
off. The house stands very badly, close to a tiny lane and near another
man's field. Our field is 15 acres and flat, looking into flat-bottomed
valleys on both sides, but no view from the drawing-room, which faces due
south, except on our flat field and bits of rather ugly distant horizon.
Close in front there are some old (very productive) cherry trees, walnut
trees, yew, Spanish chestnut, pear, old larch, Scotch fir and silver fir
and old mulberry trees, {which} make rather a pretty group. They give the
ground an old look, but from not flourishing much they also give it rather
a desolate look. There are quinces and medlars and plums with plenty of
fruit, and Morello cherries; but few apples. The purple magnolia flowers
against the house. There is a really fine beech in view in our hedge. The
kitchen garden is a detestable slip and the soil looks wretched from the
quantity of chalk flints, but I really believe it is productive. The
hedges grow well all round our field, and it is a noted piece of hayland.
This year the crop was bad, but was bought, as it stood, for 2 pounds per
acre—that is 30 pounds—the purchaser getting it in. Last year
it was sold for 45 pounds—no manure was put on in the interval. Does
not this sound well? Ask my father. Does the mulberry and magnolia show it
is not very cold in winter, which I fear is the case? Tell Susan it is 9
miles from Knole Park and 6 from Westerham, at which places I hear the
scenery is beautiful. There are many very odd views round our house—deepish
flat-bottomed valley and nice farm-house, but big, white, ugly, fallow
fields;—much wheat grown here. House ugly, looks neither old nor new—walls
two feet thick—windows rather small—lower story rather low.
Capital study 18 x 18. Dining-room 21 x 18. Drawing-room can easily be
added to: is 21 x 15. Three stories, plenty of bedrooms. We could hold the
Hensleighs and you and Susan and Erasmus all together. House in good
repair. Mr. Cresy a few years ago laid out for the owner 1,500 pounds and
made a new roof. Water-pipes over house—two bath-rooms—pretty
good offices and good stable-yard, etc., and a cottage. I believe the
price is about 2,200 pounds, and I have no doubt I shall get it for one
year on lease first to try, so that I shall do nothing to the house at
first (last owner kept three cows, one horse, and one donkey, and sold
some hay annually from one field). I have no doubt if we complete the
purchase I shall at least save 1,000 pounds over Westcroft, or any other
house we have seen. Emma was at first a good deal disappointed, and at the
country round the house; the day was gloomy and cold with N.E. wind. She
likes the actual field and house better than I; the house is just situated
as she likes for retirement, not too near or too far from other houses,
but she thinks the country looks desolate. I think all chalk countries do,
but I am used to Cambridgeshire, which is ten times worse. Emma is rapidly
coming round. She was dreadfully bad with toothache and headache in the
evening and Friday, but in coming back yesterday she was so delighted with
the scenery for the first few miles from Down, that it has worked a great
change in her. We go there again the first fine day Emma is able, and we
then finally settle what to do.

(12/2. The following fragmentary "Account of Down" was found among Mr.
Darwin's papers after the publication of the "Life and Letters." It gives
the impression that he intended to write a natural history diary after the
manner of Gilbert White, but there is no evidence that this was actually
the case.)

1843. May 15th.—The first peculiarity which strikes a stranger
unaccustomed to a hilly chalk country is the valleys, with their steep
rounded bottoms—not furrowed with the smallest rivulet. On the road
to Down from Keston a mound has been thrown across a considerable valley,
but even against this mound there is no appearance of even a small pool of
water having collected after the heaviest rains. The water all percolates
straight downwards. Ascertain average depth of wells, inclination of
strata, and springs. Does the water from this country crop out in springs
in Holmsdale or in the valley of the Thames? Examine the fine springs in
Holmsdale.

The valleys on this platform sloping northward, but exceedingly even,
generally run north and south; their sides near the summits generally
become suddenly more abrupt, and are fringed with narrow strips, or, as
they are here called, "shaws" of wood, sometimes merely by hedgerows run
wild. The sudden steepness may generally be perceived, as just before
ascending to Cudham Wood, and at Green Hill, where one of the lanes
crosses these valleys. These valleys are in all probability ancient
sea-bays, and I have sometimes speculated whether this sudden steepening
of the sides does not mark the edges of vertical cliffs formed when these
valleys were filled with sea-water, as would naturally happen in strata
such as the chalk.

In most countries the roads and footpaths ascend along the bottoms of
valleys, but here this is scarcely ever the case. All the villages and
most of the ancient houses are on the platforms or narrow strips of flat
land between the parallel valleys. Is this owing to the summits having
existed from the most ancient times as open downs and the valleys having
been filled up with brushwood? I have no evidence of this, but it is
certain that most of the farmhouses on the flat land are very ancient.
There is one peculiarity which would help to determine the footpaths to
run along the summits instead of the bottom of the valleys, in that these
latter in the middle are generally covered, even far more thickly than the
general surface, with broken flints. This bed of flints, which gradually
thins away on each side, can be seen from a long distance in a newly
ploughed or fallow field as a whitish band. Every stone which ever rolls
after heavy rain or from the kick of an animal, ever so little, all tend
to the bottom of the valleys; but whether this is sufficient to account
for their number I have sometimes doubted, and have been inclined to apply
to the case Lyell's theory of solution by rain-water, etc., etc.

The flat summit-land is covered with a bed of stiff red clay, from a few
feet in thickness to as much, I believe, as twenty feet: this {bed},
though lying immediately on the chalk, and abounding with great,
irregularly shaped, unrolled flints, often with the colour and appearance
of huge bones, which were originally embedded in the chalk, contains not a
particle of carbonate of lime. This bed of red clay lies on a very
irregular surface, and often descends into deep round wells, the origin of
which has been explained by Lyell. In these cavities are patches of sand
like sea-sand, and like the sand which alternates with the great beds of
small pebbles derived from the wear-and-tear of chalk-flints, which form
Keston, Hayes and Addington Commons. Near Down a rounded chalk-flint is a
rarity, though some few do occur; and I have not yet seen a stone of
distant origin, which makes a difference—at least to geological eyes—in
the very aspect of the country, compared with all the northern counties.

The chalk-flints decay externally, which, according to Berzelius ("Edin.
New Phil. Journal," late number), is owing to the flints containing a
small proportion of alkali; but, besides this external decay, the whole
body is affected by exposure of a few years, so that they will not break
with clean faces for building.

This bed of red clay, which renders the country very slippery in the
winter months from October to April, does not cover the sides of the
valleys; these, when ploughed, show the white chalk, which tint shades
away lower in the valley, as insensibly as a colour laid on by a painter's
brush.

Nearly all the land is ploughed, and is often left fallow, which gives the
country a naked red look, or not unfrequently white, from a covering of
chalk laid on by the farmers. Nobody seems at all aware on what principle
fresh chalk laid on land abounding with lime does it any good. This,
however, is said to have been the practice of the country ever since the
period of the Romans, and at present the many white pits on the hill
sides, which so frequently afford a picturesque contrast with the
overhanging yew trees, are all quarried for this purpose.

The number of different kinds of bushes in the hedgerows, entwined by
traveller's joy and the bryonies, is conspicuous compared with the hedges
of the northern counties.

March 25th {1844?}.—The first period of vegetation, and the banks
are clothed with pale-blue violets to an extent I have never seen
equalled, and with primroses. A few days later some of the copses were
beautifully enlivened by Ranunculus auricomus, wood anemones, and a white
Stellaria. Again, subsequently, large areas were brilliantly blue with
bluebells. The flowers are here very beautiful, and the number of flowers;
{and} the darkness of the blue of the common little Polygala almost equals
it to an alpine gentian.

There are large tracts of woodland, {cut down} about once every ten years;
some of these enclosures seem to be very ancient. On the south side of
Cudham Wood a beech hedge has grown to Brobdignagian size, with several of
the huge branches crossing each other and firmly grafted together.

Larks abound here, and their songs sound most agreeably on all sides;
nightingales are common. Judging from an odd cooing note, something like
the purring of a cat, doves are very common in the woods.

June 25th.—The sainfoin fields are now of the most beautiful pink,
and from the number of hive-bees frequenting them the humming noise is
quite extraordinary. This humming is rather deeper than the humming
overhead, which has been continuous and loud during all these last hot
days over almost every field. The labourers here say it is made by
"air-bees," and one man, seeing a wild bee in a flower different from the
hive kind, remarked: "That, no doubt, is an air-bee." This noise is
considered as a sign of settled fair weather.

CHAPTER 1.II.—EVOLUTION, 1844-1858.

(Chapter II./1. Since the publication of the "Life and Letters," Mr.
Huxley's obituary notice of Charles Darwin has appeared. (Chapter II./2.
"Proc. R. Soc." volume 44, 1888, and "Collected Essays (Darwiniana)," page
253, 1899.) This masterly paper is, in our opinion, the finest of the
great series of Darwinian essays which we owe to Mr. Huxley. We would
venture to recommend it to our readers as the best possible introduction
to these pages. There is, however, one small point in which we differ from
Mr. Huxley. In discussing the growth of Mr. Darwin's evolutionary views,
Mr. Huxley quotes from the autobiography (Chapter II./3. "Life and
Letters," I., page 82. Some account of the origin of his evolutionary
views is given in a letter to Jenyns (Blomefield), "Life and Letters," II.
page 34.) a passage in which the writer describes the deep impression made
on his mind by certain groups of facts observed in South America. Mr.
Huxley goes on: "The facts to which reference is here made were, without
doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention of a philosophical
thinker; but, until the relations of the existing with the extinct
species, and of the species of the different geographical areas with one
another, were determined with some exactness, they afforded but an unsafe
foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this determination
should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle" to England;
and thus the date (Chapter II./4. The date in question is July 1837, when
he "opened first note-book on Transmutation of Species.') which Darwin
(writing in 1837) assigns to the dawn of the new light which was rising in
his mind, becomes intelligible." This seems to us inconsistent with
Darwin's own statement that it was especially the character of the
"species on Galapagos Archipelago" which had impressed him. (Chapter
II./5. See "Life and Letters," I., page 276.) This must refer to the
zoological specimens: no doubt he was thinking of the birds, but these he
had himself collected in 1835 (Chapter II./6. He wrote in his "Journal,"
page 394, "My attention was first thoroughly aroused, by comparing
together the numerous specimens shot by myself and several other parties
on board," etc.), and no accurate determination of the forms was necessary
to impress on him the remarkable characteristic species of the different
islands. We agree with Mr. Huxley that 1837 is the date of the "new light
which was rising in his mind." That the dawn did not come sooner seems to
us to be accounted for by the need of time to produce so great a
revolution in his conceptions. We do not see that Mr. Huxley's supposition
as to the effect of the determination of species, etc., has much weight.
Mr. Huxley quotes a letter from Darwin to Zacharias, "But I did not become
convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years
{after 1837} had elapsed" (see Letter 278). This passage, which it must be
remembered was written in 1877, is all but irreconcilable with the direct
evidence of the 1837 note-book. A series of passages are quoted from it in
the "Life and Letters," Volume II., pages 5 et seq., and these it is
impossible to read without feeling that he was convinced of immutability.
He had not yet attained to a clear idea of Natural Selection, and
therefore his views may not have had, even to himself, the irresistible
convincing power they afterwards gained; but that he was, in the ordinary
sense of the word, convinced of the truth of the doctrine of evolution we
cannot doubt. He thought it "almost useless" to try to prove the truth of
evolution until the cause of change was discovered. And it is natural that
in later life he should have felt that conviction was wanting till that
cause was made out. (Chapter II./7. See "Charles Darwin, his Life told,
etc." 1892, page 165.) For the purposes of the present chapter the point
is not very material. We know that in 1842 he wrote the first sketch of
his theory, and that it was greatly amplified in 1844. So that, at the
date of the first letters of this chapter, we know that he had a working
hypothesis of evolution which did not differ in essentials from that given
in the "Origin of Species."

To realise the amount of work that was in progress during the period
covered by Chapter II., it should be remembered that during part of the
time—namely, from 1846 to 1854—he was largely occupied by his
work on the Cirripedes. (Chapter II./8. "Life and Letters," I. page 346.)
This research would have fully occupied a less methodical workman, and
even to those who saw him at work it seemed his whole occupation. Thus (to
quote a story of Lord Avebury's) one of Mr. Darwin's children is said to
have asked, in regard to a neighbour, "Then where does he do his
barnacles?" as though not merely his father, but all other men, must be
occupied on that group.

Sir Joseph Hooker, to whom the first letter in this chapter is addressed,
was good enough to supply a note on the origin of his intimacy with Mr.
Darwin, and this is published in the "Life and Letters." (Chapter II./9.
Ibid., II., page 19. See also "Nature," 1899, June 22nd, page 187, where
some reminiscences are published, which formed part of Sir Joseph's speech
at the unveiling of Darwin's statue in the Oxford Museum.) The close
intercourse that sprang up between them was largely carried on by
correspondence, and Mr. Darwin's letters to Sir Joseph have supplied most
valuable biographical material. But it should not be forgotten that, quite
apart from this, science owes much to this memorable friendship, since
without Hooker's aid Darwin's great work would hardly have been carried
out on the botanical side. And Sir Joseph did far more than supply
knowledge and guidance in technical matters: Darwin owed to him a
sympathetic and inspiriting comradeship which cheered and refreshed him to
the end of his life.

A sentence from a letter to Hooker written in 1845 shows, quite as well as
more serious utterances, how quickly the acquaintance grew into
friendship.

"Farewell! What a good thing is community of tastes! I feel as if I had
known you for fifty years. Adios." And in illustration of the permanence
of the sympathetic bond between them, we quote a letter of 1881 written
forty-two years after the first meeting with Sir Joseph in Trafalgar
Square (see "Life and Letters," II., page 19). Mr. Darwin wrote: "Your
letter has cheered me, and the world does not look a quarter so black this
morning as it did when I wrote before. Your friendly words are worth their
weight in gold.")

LETTER 13. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Thursday {January 11th, 1844}.

My dear Sir

I must write to thank you for your last letter, and to tell you how much
all your views and facts interest me. I must be allowed to put my own
interpretation on what you say of "not being a good arranger of extended
views"—which is, that you do not indulge in the loose speculations
so easily started by every smatterer and wandering collector. I look at a
strong tendency to generalise as an entire evil.

What you say of Mr. Brown is humiliating; I had suspected it, but would
not allow myself to believe in such heresy. Fitz-Roy gave him a rap in his
preface (13/1. In the preface to the "Surveying Voyages of the 'Adventure'
and the 'Beagle,' 1826-30, forming Volume I of the work, which includes
the later voyage of the "Beagle," Captain Fitz-Roy wrote (March, 1839):
"Captain King took great pains in forming and preserving a botanical
collection, aided by a person embarked solely for that purpose. He placed
this collection in the British Museum, and was led to expect that a
first-rate botanist would have examined and described it; but he has been
disappointed." A reference to Robert Brown's dilatoriness over King's
collection occurs in the "Life and Letters," I., page 274, note.), and
made him very indignant, but it seems a much harder one would not have
been wasted. My cryptogamic collection was sent to Berkeley; it was not
large. I do not believe he has yet published an account, but he wrote to
me some year ago that he had described {the specimens} and mislaid all his
descriptions. Would it not be well for you to put yourself in
communication with him, as otherwise something will perhaps be twice
laboured over? My best (though poor) collection of the cryptogams was from
the Chonos Islands.

Would you kindly observe one little fact for me, whether any species of
plant, peculiar to any island, as Galapagos, St. Helena, or New Zealand,
where there are no large quadrupeds, have hooked seeds—such hooks
as, if observed here, would be thought with justness to be adapted to
catch into wool of animals.

Would you further oblige me some time by informing me (though I forget
this will certainly appear in your "Antarctic Flora") whether in islands
like St. Helena, Galapagos, and New Zealand, the number of families and
genera are large compared with the number of species, as happens in coral
islands, and as, I believe, in the extreme Arctic land. Certainly this is
the case with marine shells in extreme Arctic seas. Do you suppose the
fewness of species in proportion to number of large groups in coral islets
is owing to the chance of seeds from all orders getting drifted to such
new spots, as I have supposed. Did you collect sea-shells in
Kerguelen-land? I should like to know their character.

Your interesting letters tempt me to be very unreasonable in asking you
questions; but you must not give yourself any trouble about them, for I
know how fully and worthily you are employed. (13/2. The rest of the
letter has been previously published in "Life and Letters," II., page 23.)

Besides a general interest about the southern lands, I have been now ever
since my return engaged in a very presumptuous work, and I know no one
individual who would not say a very foolish one. I was so struck with the
distribution of the Galapagos organisms, etc., and with the character of
the American fossil mammifers, etc., that I determined to collect blindly
every sort of fact which could bear any way on what are species. I have
read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books, and have never ceased
collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost
convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are
not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from
Lamarck nonsense of a "tendency to progression," "adaptations from the
slow willing of animals," etc.! But the conclusions I am led to are not
widely different from his; though the means of change are wholly so. I
think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which
species become exquisitely adapted to various ends. You will now groan,
and think to yourself, "on what a man have I been wasting my time and
writing to." I should, five years ago, have thought so...(13/3. On the
questions here dealt with see the interesting letter to Jenyns in the
"Life and Letters," II., page 34.)

LETTER 14. TO J.D. HOOKER. {November} 1844.

...What a curious, wonderful case is that of the Lycopodium! (14/1. Sir
J.D. Hooker wrote, November 8, 1844: "I am firmly convinced (but not
enough to print it) that L. Selago varies in Van Diemen's Land into L.
varium. Two more different SPECIES (as they have hitherto been thought),
per se cannot be conceived, but nowhere else do they vary into one
another, nor does Selago vary at all in England.")...I suppose you would
hardly have expected them to be more varying than a phanerogamic plant. I
trust you will work the case out, and, even if unsupported, publish it,
for you can surely do this with due caution. I have heard of some
analogous facts, though on the smallest scale, in certain insects being
more variable in one district than in another, and I think the same holds
with some land-shells. By a strange chance I had noted to ask you in this
letter an analogous question, with respect to genera, in lieu of
individual species,—that is, whether you know of any case of a genus
with most of its species being variable (say Rubus) in one continent,
having another set of species in another continent non-variable, or not in
so marked a manner. Mr. Herbert (14/2. No doubt Dean Herbert, the
horticulturist. See "Life and Letters," I., page 343.) incidentally
mentioned in a letter to me that the heaths at the Cape of Good Hope were
very variable, whilst in Europe they are (?) not so; but then the species
here are few in comparison, so that the case, even if true, is not a good
one. In some genera of insects the variability appears to be common in
distant parts of the world. In shells, I hope hereafter to get much light
on this question through fossils. If you can help me, I should be very
much obliged: indeed, all your letters are most useful to me.

MONDAY:—Now for your first long letter, and to me quite as
interesting as long. Several things are quite new to me in it—viz.,
for one, your belief that there are more extra-tropical than
intra-tropical species. I see that my argument from the Arctic regions is
false, and I should not have tried to argue against you, had I not fancied
that you thought that equability of climate was the direct cause of the
creation of a greater or lesser number of species. I see you call our
climate equable; I should have thought it was the contrary. Anyhow, the
term is vague, and in England will depend upon whether a person compares
it with the United States or Tierra del Fuego. In my Journal (page 342) I
see I state that in South Chiloe, at a height of about 1,000 feet, the
forests had a Fuegian aspect: I distinctly recollect that at the sea-level
in the middle of Chiloe the forest had almost a tropical aspect. I should
like much to hear, if you make out, whether the N. or S. boundaries of a
plant are the most restricted; I should have expected that the S. would
be, in the temperate regions, from the number of antagonist species being
greater. N.B. Humboldt, when in London, told me of some river (14/3. The
Obi (see "Flora Antarctica," page 211, note). Hooker writes: "Some of the
most conspicuous trees attain either of its banks, but do not cross
them.") in N.E. Europe, on the opposite banks of which the flora was, on
the same soil and under same climate, widely different!

I forget (14/4. The last paragraph is published in "Life and Letters,"
II., page 29.) my last letter, but it must have been a very silly one, as
it seems I gave my notion of the number of species being in great degree
governed by the degree to which the area had been often isolated and
divided. I must have been cracked to have written it, for I have no
evidence, without a person be willing to admit all my views, and then it
does follow.

(14/5. The remainder of the foregoing letter is published in the "Life and
Letters," II., page 29. It is interesting as giving his views on the
mutability of species. Thus he wrote: "With respect to books on this
subject, I do not know any systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is
veritable rubbish; but there are plenty, as Lyell, Pritchard, etc., on the
view of the immutability." By "Pritchard" is no doubt intended James
Cowles "Prichard," author of the "Physical History of Mankind." Prof.
Poulton has given in his paper, "A remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views
on Evolution" (14/6. "Science Progress," Volume I., April 1897, page
278.), an interesting study of Prichard's work. He shows that Prichard was
in advance of his day in his views on the non-transmission of acquired
characters. Prof. Poulton also tries to show that Prichard was an
evolutionist. He allows that Prichard wrote with hesitation, and that in
the later editions of his book his views became weaker. But, even with
these qualifications, we think that Poulton has unintentionally
exaggerated the degree to which Prichard believed in evolution.

One of Prichard's strongest sentences is quoted by Poulton (loc. cit.,
page 16); it occurs in the "Physical History of Mankind," Ed. 2, Volume
II., page 570:—

"Is it not probable that the varieties which spring up within the limits
of particular species are further adaptations of structure to the
circumstances under which the tribe is destined to exist? Varieties branch
out from the common form of a species, just as the forms of species
deviate from the common type of a genus. Why should the one class of
phenomena be without end or utility, a mere effect of contingency or
chance, more than the other?"

If this passage, and others similar to it, stood alone, we might agree
with Prof. Poulton; but this is impossible when we find in Volume I. of
the same edition, page 90, the following uncompromising statement of
immutability:—

"The meaning attached to the term species, in natural history, is very
simple and obvious. It includes only one circumstance—namely, an
original distinctness and constant transmission of any character. A race
of animals, or plants, marked by any peculiarities of structure which have
always been constant and undeviating, constitutes a species."

On page 91, in speaking of the idea that the species which make up a genus
may have descended from a common form, he says:—

"There must, indeed, be some principle on which the phenomena of
resemblance, as well as those of diversity, may be explained; and the
reference of several forms to a common type seems calculated to suggest
the idea of some original affinity; but, as this is merely a conjecture,
it must be kept out of sight when our inquiries respect matters of fact
only."

This view is again given in Volume II., page 569, where he asks whether we
should believe that "at the first production of a genus, when it first
grew into existence, some slight modification in the productive causes
stamped it originally with all these specific diversities? Or is it most
probable that the modification was subsequent to its origin, and that the
genus at its first creation was one and uniform, and afterwards became
diversified by the influence of external agents?" He concludes that "the
former of these suppositions is the conclusion to which we are led by all
that can be ascertained respecting the limits of species, and the extent
of variation under the influence of causes at present existing and
operating."

In spite of the fact that Prichard did not carry his ideas to their
logical conclusion, it may perhaps excite surprise that Mr. Darwin should
have spoken of him as absolutely on the side of immutability.

We believe it to be partly accounted for (as Poulton suggests) by the fact
that Mr. Darwin possessed only the third edition (1836 and 1837) and the
fourth edition (1841-51). (14/7. The edition of 1841-51 consists of
reprints of the third edition and three additional volumes of various
dates. Volumes I. and II. are described in the title-page as the fourth
edition; Volumes III. and IV. as the third edition, and Volume V. has no
edition marked in the title.) In neither of these is the evolutionary
point of view so strong as in the second edition.

We have gone through all the passages marked by Mr. Darwin for future
reference in the third and fourth editions, and have been only able to
find the following, which occurs in the third edition (Volume I., 1836,
page 242) (14/8. There is also (ed. 1837, Volume II., page 344) a vague
reference to Natural Selection, of which the last sentence is enclosed in
pencil in inverted commas, as though Mr. Darwin had intended to quote it:
"In other parts of Africa the xanthous variety {of man} often appears, but
does not multiply. Individuals thus characterised are like seeds which
perish in an uncongenial soil.")

"The variety in form, prevalent among all organised productions of nature,
is found to subsist between individual beings of whatever species, even
when they are offspring of the same parents. Another circumstance equally
remarkable is the tendency which exists in almost every tribe, whether of
animals or of plants, to transmit to their offspring and to perpetuate in
their race all individual peculiarities which may thus have taken their
rise. These two general facts in the economy of organised beings lay a
foundation for the existence of diversified races, originating from the
same primitive stock and within the limits of identical species."

On the following page (page 243) a passage (not marked by Mr. Darwin)
emphasises the limitation which Prichard ascribed to the results of
variation and inheritance:—

"Even those physiologists who contend for what is termed the indefinite
nature of species admit that they have limits at present and under
ordinary circumstances. Whatever diversities take place happen without
breaking in upon the characteristic type of the species. This is
transmitted from generation to generation: goats produce goats, and sheep,
sheep."

The passage on page 242 occurs in the reprint of the 1836-7 edition which
forms part of the 1841-51 edition, but is not there marked by Mr. Darwin.
He notes at the end of Volume I. of the 1836-7 edition: "March, 1857. I
have not looked through all these {i.e. marked passages}, but I have gone
through the later edition"; and a similar entry is in Volume II. of the
third edition. It is therefore easy to understand how he came to overlook
the passage on page 242 when he began the fuller statement of his species
theory which is referred to in the "Life and Letters" as the "unfinished
book." In the historical sketch prefixed to the "Origin of Species"
writers are named as precursors whose claims are less strong than
Prichard's, and it is certain that Mr. Darwin would have given an account
of him if he had thought of him as an evolutionist.

The two following passages will show that Mr. Darwin was, from his
knowledge of Prichard's books, justified in classing him among those who
did not believe in the mutability of species:

"The various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by the
Creator in certain regions, for which they are by their nature peculiarly
adapted. Each species had only one beginning in a single stock: probably a
single pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was first called into being in some
particular spot, and the progeny left to disperse themselves to as great a
distance from the original centre of their existence as the locomotive
powers bestowed on them, or their capability of bearing changes of climate
and other physical agencies, may have enabled them to wander." (14/9.
Prichard, third edition, 1836-7, Volume I., page 96.)

The second passage is annotated by Mr. Darwin with a shower of exclamation
marks:

"The meaning attached to the term SPECIES in natural history is very
definite and intelligible. It includes only the following conditions—namely,
separate origin and distinctness of race, evinced by the constant
transmission of some characteristic peculiarity of organisation. A race of
animals or of plants marked by any peculiar character which has always
been constant and undeviating constitutes a species; and two races are
considered as specifically different, if they are distinguished from each
other by some characteristic which one cannot be supposed to have
acquired, or the other to have lost through any known operation of
physical causes; for we are hence led to conclude that the tribes thus
distinguished have not descended from the same original stock." (14/10.
Prichard, ed. 1836-7, Volume I., page 106. This passage is almost
identical with that quoted from the second edition, Volume I., page 90.
The latter part, from "and two races...," occurs in the second edition,
though not quoted above.)

As was his custom, Mr. Darwin pinned at the end of the first volume of the
1841-51 edition a piece of paper containing a list of the pages where
marked passages occur. This paper bears, written in pencil, "How like my
book all this will be!" The words appear to refer to Prichard's discussion
on the dispersal of animals and plants; they certainly do not refer to the
evolutionary views to be found in the book.)

LETTER 15. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1844}.

Thank you exceedingly for your long letter, and I am in truth ashamed of
the time and trouble you have taken for me; but I must some day write
again to you on the subject of your letter. I will only now observe that
you have extended my remark on the range of species of shells into the
range of genera or groups. Analogy from shells would only go so far, that
if two or three species...were found to range from America to India, they
would be found to extend through an unusual thickness of strata—say
from the Upper Cretaceous to its lowest bed, or the Neocomian. Or you may
reverse it and say those species which range throughout the whole
Cretaceous, will have wide ranges: viz., from America through Europe to
India (this is one actual case with shells in the Cretaceous period).

LETTER 16. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1845}.

I ought to have written sooner to say that I am very willing to subscribe
1 pound 1 shilling to the African man (though it be murder on a small
scale), and will send you a Post-office-order payable to Kew, if you will
be so good as to take charge of it. Thanks for your information about the
Antarctic Zoology; I got my numbers when in Town on Thursday: would it be
asking your publisher to take too much trouble to send your Botany {"Flora
Antarctica," by J.D. Hooker, 1844} to the Athenaeum Club? he might send
two or three numbers together. I am really ashamed to think of your having
given me such a valuable work; all I can say is that I appreciate your
present in two ways—as your gift, and for its great use to my
species-work. I am very glad to hear that you mean to attack this subject
some day. I wonder whether we shall ever be public combatants; anyhow, I
congratulate myself in a most unfair advantage of you, viz., in having
extracted more facts and views from you than from any one other person. I
daresay your explanation of polymorphism on volcanic islands may be the
right one; the reason I am curious about it is, the fact of the birds on
the Galapagos being in several instances very fine-run species—that
is, in comparing them, not so much one with another, as with their
analogues from the continent. I have somehow felt, like you, that an
alpine form of a plant is not a true variety; and yet I cannot admit that
the simple fact of the cause being assignable ought to prevent its being
called a variety; every variation must have some cause, so that the
difference would rest on our knowledge in being able or not to assign the
cause. Do you consider that a true variety should be produced by causes
acting through the parent? But even taking this definition, are you sure
that alpine forms are not inherited from one, two, or three generations?
Now, would not this be a curious and valuable experiment (16/1. For an
account of work of this character, see papers by G. Bonnier in the "Revue
Generale," Volume II., 1890; "Ann. Sc. Nat." Volume XX.; "Revue Generale,"
Volume VII.), viz., to get seeds of some alpine plant, a little more
hairy, etc., etc., than its lowland fellow, and raise seedlings at Kew: if
this has not been done, could you not get it done? Have you anybody in
Scotland from whom you could get the seeds?

I have been interested by your remarks on Senecia and Gnaphalium: would it
not be worth while (I should be very curious to hear the result) to make a
short list of the generally considered variable or polymorphous genera, as
Rosa, Salix, Rubus, etc., etc., and reflect whether such genera are
generally mundane, and more especially whether they have distinct or
identical (or closely allied) species in their different and distant
habitats.

Don't forget me, if you ever stumble on cases of the same species being
MORE or LESS variable in different countries.

With respect to the word "sterile" as used for male or polleniferous
flowers, it has always offended my ears dreadfully; on the same principle
that it would to hear a potent stallion, ram or bull called sterile,
because they did not bear, as well as beget, young.

With respect to your geological-map suggestion, I wish with all my heart I
could follow it; but just reflect on the number of measurements requisite;
why, at present it could not be done even in England, even with the
assumption of the land having simply risen any exact number of feet. But
subsidence in most cases has hopelessly complexed the problem: see what
Jordanhill-Smith (16/2. James Smith, of Jordan Hill, author of a paper "On
the Geology of Gibraltar" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume II., page 41,
1846).) says of the dance up and down, many times, which Gibraltar has had
all within the recent period. Such maps as Lyell (16/3. "Principles of
Geology," 1875, Volume I., Plate I, page 254.) has published of sea and
land at the beginning of the Tertiary period must be excessively
inaccurate: it assumes that every part on which Tertiary beds have not
been deposited, must have then been dry land,—a most doubtful
assumption.

I have been amused by Chambers v. Hooker on the K. Cabbage. I see in the
"Explanations" (the spirit of which, though not the facts, ought to shame
Sedgwick) that "Vestiges" considers all land-animals and plants to have
passed from marine forms; so Chambers is quite in accordance. Did you hear
Forbes, when here, giving the rather curious evidence (from a similarity
in error) that Chambers must be the author of the "Vestiges": your case
strikes me as some confirmation. I have written an unreasonably long and
dull letter, so farewell. (16/4. "Explanations: A Sequel to the Vestiges
of the Natural History of Creation" was published in 1845, after the
appearance of the fourth edition of the "Vestiges," by way of reply to the
criticisms on the original book. The "K. cabbage" referred to at the
beginning of the paragraph is Pringlea antiscorbutica," the "Kerguelen
Cabbage" described by Sir J.D. Hooker in his "Flora Antarctica." What
Chambers wrote on this subject we have not discovered. The mention of
Sedgwick is a reference to his severe review of the "Vestiges" in the
"Edinburgh Review," 1845, volume 82, page 1. Darwin described it as
savouring "of the dogmatism of the pulpit" ("Life and Letters," I., page
344). Mr. Ireland's edition of the "Vestiges" (1844), in which Robert
Chambers was first authentically announced as the author, contains (page
xxix) an extract from a letter written by Chambers in 1860, in which the
following passage occurs, "The April number of the 'Edinburgh Review"'
(1860) makes all but a direct amende for the abuse it poured upon my work
a number of years ago." This is the well-known review by Owen, to which
references occur in the "Life and Letters," II., page 300. The amende to
the "Vestiges" is not so full as the author felt it to be; but it was
clearly in place in a paper intended to belittle the "Origin"; it also
gave the reviewer (page 511) an opportunity for a hit at Sedgwick and his
1845 review.)

LETTER 17. TO L. BLOMEFIELD {JENYNS}. Down. February 14th {1845}.

I have taken my leisure in thanking you for your last letter and
discussion, to me very interesting, on the increase of species. Since your
letter, I have met with a very similar view in Richardson, who states that
the young are driven away by the old into unfavourable districts, and
there mostly perish. When one meets with such unexpected statistical
returns on the increase and decrease and proportion of deaths and births
amongst mankind, and in this well-known country of ours, one ought not to
be in the least surprised at one's ignorance, when, where, and how the
endless increase of our robins and sparrows is checked.

Thanks for your hints about terms of "mutation," etc.; I had some
suspicions that it was not quite correct, and yet I do not see my way to
arrive at any better terms. It will be years before I publish, so that I
shall have plenty of time to think of better words. Development would
perhaps do, only it is applied to the changes of an individual during its
growth. I am, however, very glad of your remark, and will ponder over it.

We are all well, wife and children three, and as flourishing as this
horrid, house-confining, tempestuous weather permits.

LETTER 18. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1845}.

I hope you are getting on well with your lectures, and that you have
enjoyed some pleasant walks during the late delightful weather. I write to
tell you (as perhaps you might have had fears on the subject) that your
books have arrived safely. I am exceedingly obliged to you for them, and
will take great care of them; they will take me some time to read
carefully.

I send to-day the corrected MS. of the first number of my "Journal" (18/1.
In 1842 he had written to his sister: "Talking of money, I reaped the
other day all the profit which I shall ever get from my "Journal"
{"Journal of Researches, etc."} which consisted in paying Mr. Colburn 21
pounds 10 shillings for the copies which I presented to different people;
1,337 copies have been sold. This is a comfortable arrangement, is it
not?" He was proved wrong in his gloomy prophecy, as the second edition
was published by Mr. Murray in 1845.) in the Colonial Library, so that if
you chance to know of any gross mistake in the first 214 pages (if you
have my "Journal"), I should be obliged to you to tell me.

Do not answer this for form's sake; for you must be very busy. We have
just had the Lyells here, and you ought to have a wife to stop your
working too much, as Mrs. Lyell peremptorily stops Lyell.

LETTER 19. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(19/1. Sir J.D. Hooker's letters to Mr. Darwin seem to fix the date as
1845, while the reference to Forbes' paper indicates 1846.)

Down {1845-1846}.

I am particularly obliged for your facts about solitary islands having
several species of peculiar genera; it knocks on the head some analogies
of mine; the point stupidly never occurred to me to ask about. I am amused
at your anathemas against variation and co.; whatever you may be pleased
to say, you will never be content with simple species, "as they are." I
defy you to steel your mind to technicalities, like so many of our brother
naturalists. I am much pleased that I thought of sending you Forbes'
article. (19/2. E. Forbes' celebrated paper "Memoirs of the Geological
Survey of Great Britain," Volume I., page 336, 1846. In Lyell's
"Principles," 7th Edition, 1847, page 676, he makes a temperate claim of
priority, as he had already done in a private letter of October 14th,
1846, to Forbes ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," 1881, Volume II., page 106)
both as regards the Sicilian flora and the barrier effect of
mountain-chains. See Letter 20 for a note on Forbes.) I confess I cannot
make out the evidence of his time-notions in distribution, and I cannot
help suspecting that they are rather vague. Lyell preceded Forbes in one
class of speculation of this kind: for instance, in his explaining the
identity of the Sicily Flora with that of South Italy, by its having been
wholly upraised within the recent period; and, so I believe, with
mountain-chains separating floras. I do not remember Humboldt's fact about
the heath regions. Very curious the case of the broom; I can tell you
something analogous on a small scale. My father, when he built his house,
sowed many broom-seeds on a wild bank, which did not come up, owing, as it
was thought, to much earth having been thrown over them. About thirty-five
years afterwards, in cutting a terrace, all this earth was thrown up, and
now the bank is one mass of broom. I see we were in some degree talking to
cross-purposes; when I said I did {not} much believe in hybridising to any
extent, I did not mean at all to exclude crossing. It has long been a
hobby of mine to see in how many flowers such crossing is probable; it
was, I believe, Knight's view, originally, that every plant must be
occasionally crossed. (19/3. See an article on "The Knight-Darwin law" by
Francis Darwin in "Nature," October 27th, 1898, page 630.) I find,
however, plenty of difficulty in showing even a vague probability of this;
especially in the Leguminosae, though their {structure?} is inimitably
adapted to favour crossing, I have never yet met with but one instance of
a NATURAL MONGREL (nor mule?) in this family.

I shall be particularly curious to hear some account of the appearance and
origin of the Ayrshire Irish Yew. And now for the main object of my
letter: it is to ask whether you would just run your eye over the proof of
my Galapagos chapter (19/4. In the second edition of the "Naturalist's
Voyage."), where I mention the plants, to see that I have made no
blunders, or spelt any of the scientific names wrongly. As I daresay you
will so far oblige me, will you let me know a few days before, when you
leave Edinburgh and how long you stay at Kinnordy, so that my letter might
catch you. I am not surprised at my collection from James Island differing
from others, as the damp upland district (where I slept two nights) is six
miles from the coast, and no naturalist except myself probably ever
ascended to it. Cuming had never even heard of it. Cuming tells me that he
was on Charles, James, and Albemarle Islands, and that he cannot remember
from my description the Scalesia, but thinks he could if he saw a
specimen. I have no idea of the origin of the distribution of the
Galapagos shells, about which you ask. I presume (after Forbes' excellent
remarks on the facilities by which embryo-shells are transported) that the
Pacific shells have been borne thither by currents; but the currents all
run the other way.

(PLATE: EDWARD FORBES 1844? From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.)

LETTER 20. EDWARD FORBES TO C. DARWIN.

(20/1. Edward Forbes was at work on his celebrated paper in the
"Geological Survey Memoirs" for 1846. We have not seen the letter of
Darwin's to which this is a reply, nor, indeed, any of his letters to
Forbes. The date of the letter is fixed by Forbes's lecture given at the
Royal Institution on February 27th, 1846 (according to L. Horner's
privately printed "Memoirs," II., page 94.))

Wednesday. 3, Southwark Street, Hyde Park. {1846}.

Dear Darwin

To answer your very welcome letter, so far from being a waste of time, is
a gain, for it obliges me to make myself clear and understood on matters
which I have evidently put forward imperfectly and with obscurity. I have
devoted the whole of this week to working and writing out the flora
question, for I now feel strong enough to give my promised evening lecture
on it at the Royal Institution on Friday, and, moreover, wish to get it in
printable form for the Reports of our Survey. Therefore at no time can I
receive or answer objections with more benefit than now. From the hurry
and pressure which unfortunately attend all my movements and doings I
rarely have time to spare, in preparing for publication, to do more than
give brief and unsatisfactory abstracts, which I fear are often extremely
obscure.

Now for your objections—which have sprung out of my own obscurities.

I do not argue in a circle about the Irish case, but treat the botanical
evidence of connection and the geological as distinct. The former only I
urged at Cambridge; the latter I have not yet publicly maintained.

My Cambridge argument (20/2. "On the Distribution of Endemic Plants," by
E. Forbes, "Brit. Assoc. Rep." 1845 (Cambridge), page 67.) was this: That
no known currents, whether of water or air, or ordinary means of transport
(20/3. Darwin's note on transportation (found with Forbes' letter):
"Forbes' arguments, from several Spanish plants in Ireland not being
transported, not sound, because sea-currents and air ditto and migration
of birds in SAME LINES. I have thought not-transportation the greatest
difficulty. Now we see how many seeds every plant and tree requires to be
regularly propagated in its own country, for we cannot think the great
number of seeds superfluous, and therefore how small is the chance of here
and there a solitary seedling being preserved in a well-stocked
country."), would account for the little group of Asturian plants—few
as to species, but playing a conspicuous part in the vegetation—giving
a peculiar botanical character to the south of Ireland; that, as I had
produced evidence of the other floras of our islands, i.e. the Germanic,
the Cretaceous, and the Devonian (these terms used topographically, not
geologically) having been acquired by migration over continuous land (the
glacial or alpine flora I except for the present—as ice-carriage
might have played a great part in its introduction)—I considered it
most probable, and maintained, that the introduction of that Irish flora
was also effected by the same means. I held also that the character of
this flora was more southern and more ancient than that of any of the
others, and that its fragmentary and limited state was probably due to the
plants composing it having (from their comparative hardiness—heaths,
saxifrages, etc.) survived the destroying influence of the glacial epoch.

My geological argument now is as follows: half the Mediterranean islands,
or more, are partly—in some cases (as Malta) wholly—composed
of the upheaved bed of the Miocene sea; so is a great part of the south of
France from Bordeaux to Montpellier; so is the west of Portugal; and we
find the corresponding beds with the same fossils (Pecten latissimus,
etc.) in the Azores. So general an upheaval seems to me to indicate the
former existence of a great post-Miocene land {in} the region of what is
usually called the Mediterranean flora. (Everywhere these Miocene islands,
etc., bear a flora of true type.) If this land existed, it did not extend
to America, for the fossils of the Miocene of America are representative
and not identical. Where, then, was the edge or coast-line of it,
Atlantic-wards? Look at the form and constancy of the great fucus-bank,
and consider that it is a Sargassum bank, and that the Sargassum there is
in an abnormal condition, and that the species of this genus of fuci are
essentially ground-growers, and then see the probability of this bank
having originated on a line of ancient coast.

Now, having thus argued independently, first on my flora and second on the
geological evidences of land in the quarter required, I put the two
together to bear up my Irish case.

I cannot admit the Sargassum case to be parallel with that of Confervae or
Oscillatoria.

I think I have evidence from the fossils of the boulder formations in
Ireland that if such Miocene land existed it must have been broken up or
partially broken up at the epoch of the glacial or boulder period.

All objections thankfully received.

Ever most sincerely,

EDWARD FORBES.

LETTER 21. TO L. JENYNS (BLOMEFIELD). Down. {1846}.

I am much obliged for your note and kind intended present of your volume.
(21/1. No doubt the late Mr. Blomefield's "Observations in Natural
History." See "Life and Letters," II., page 31.) I feel sure I shall like
it, for all discussions and observations on what the world would call
trifling points in Natural History always appear to me very interesting.
In such foreign periodicals as I have seen, there are no such papers as
White, or Waterton, or some few other naturalists in Loudon's and
Charlesworth's Journal, would have written; and a great loss it has always
appeared to me. I should have much liked to have met you in London, but I
cannot leave home, as my wife is recovering from a rather sharp fever
attack, and I am myself slaving to finish my S. American Geology (21/2.
"Geological Observations in South America" (London), 1846.), of which,
thanks to all Plutonic powers, two-thirds are through the press, and then
I shall feel a comparatively free man. Have you any thoughts of
Southampton? (21/3. The British Association met at Southampton in 1846.) I
have some vague idea of going there, and should much enjoy meeting you.

LETTER 22. TO J.D. HOOKER. Shrewsbury {end of February 1846}.

I came here on account of my father's health, which has been sadly failing
of late, but to my great joy he has got surprisingly better...I had not
heard of your botanical appointment (22/1. Sir Joseph was appointed
Botanist to the Geological Survey in 1846.), and am very glad of it, more
especially as it will make you travel and give you change of work and
relaxation. Will you some time have to examine the Chalk and its junction
with London Clay and Greensand? If so our house would be a good central
place, and my horse would be at your disposal. Could you not spin a long
week out of this examination? it would in truth delight us, and you could
bring your papers (like Lyell) and work at odd times. Forbes has been
writing to me about his subsidence doctrines; I wish I had heard his full
details, but I have expressed to him in my ignorance my objections, which
rest merely on its too great hypothetical basis; I shall be curious, when
I meet him, to hear what he says. He is also speculating on the gulf-weed.
I confess I cannot appreciate his reasoning about his Miocene continent,
but I daresay it is from want of knowledge.

You allude to the Sicily flora not being peculiar, and this being caused
by its recent elevation (well established) in the main part: you will find
Lyell has put forward this very clearly and well. The Apennines (which I
was somewhere lately reading about) seems a very curious case.

I think Forbes ought to allude a little to Lyell's (22/2. See Letter 19.)
work on nearly the same subject as his speculations; not that I mean that
Forbes wishes to take the smallest credit from him or any man alive; no
man, as far as I see, likes so much to give credit to others, or more
soars above the petty craving for self-celebrity.

If you come to any more conclusions about polymorphism, I should be very
glad to hear the result: it is delightful to have many points fermenting
in one's brain, and your letters and conclusions always give one plenty of
this same fermentation. I wish I could even make any return for all your
facts, views, and suggestions.

LETTER 23. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(23/1. The following extract gives the germ of what developed into an
interesting discussion in the "Origin" (Edition I., page 147). Darwin
wrote, "I suspect also that some cases of compensation which have been
advanced and likewise some other facts, may be merged under a more general
principle: namely, that natural selection is continually trying to
economise in every part of the organism." He speaks of the general belief
of botanists in compensation, but does not quote any instances.)

{September 1846}.

Have you ever thought of G. St. Hilaire's "loi de balancement" (23/2.
According to Darwin ("Variation of Animals and Plants," 2nd edition, II.,
page 335) the law of balancement was propounded by Goethe and Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) nearly at the same time, but he gives no
reference to the works of these authors. It appears, however, from his son
Isidore's "Vie, Travaux etc., d'Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire," Paris
1847, page 214, that the law was given in his "Philosophie Anatomique," of
which the first part was published in 1818. Darwin (ibid.) gives some
instances of the law holding good in plants.), as applied to plants? I am
well aware that some zoologists quite reject it, but it certainly appears
to me that it often holds good with animals. You are no doubt aware of the
kind of facts I refer to, such as great development of canines in the
carnivora apparently causing a diminution—a compensation or
balancement—in the small size of premolars, etc. I have incidentally
noticed some analogous remarks on plants, but have never seen it discussed
by botanists. Can you think of cases in any one species in genus, or genus
in family, with certain parts extra developed, and some adjoining parts
reduced? In varieties of the same species double flowers and large fruits
seem something of this—want of pollen and of seeds balancing with
the increased number of petals and development of fruit. I hope we shall
see you here this autumn.

(24/1. In this year (1847) Darwin wrote a short review of Waterhouse's
"Natural History of the Mammalia," of which the first volume had appeared.
It was published in "The Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume
XIX., page 53. The following sentence is the only one which shows even a
trace of evolution: "whether we view classification as a mere contrivance
to convey much information in a single word, or as something more than a
memoria technica, and as connected with the laws of creation, we cannot
doubt that where such important differences in the generative and cerebral
systems, as distinguish the Marsupiata from the Placentata, run through
two series of animals, they ought to be arranged under heads of equal
value."

A characteristic remark occurs in reference to Geographical Distribution,
"that noble subject of which we as yet but dimly see the full bearing."

The following letter seems to be of sufficient interest to be published in
spite of the obscurities caused by the want of date. It seems to have been
written after 1847, in which year a dispute involving Dr. King and several
"arctic gentlemen" was carried on in the "Athenaeum." Mr. Darwin speaks of
"Natural History Instructions for the present expedition." This may
possibly refer to the "Admiralty Manual of Scientific Enquiry" (1849), for
it is clear, from the prefatory memorandum of the Lords of the Admiralty,
that they believed the manual would be of use in the forthcoming
expeditions in search of Sir John Franklin.)

LETTER 24. TO E. CRESY.

(24/2. Mr. Cresy was, we believe, an architect: his friendship with Mr.
Darwin dates from the settlement at Down.)

Down {after 1847}.

Although I have never particularly attended to the points in dispute
between Dr. (Richard) King and the other Arctic gentlemen, yet I have
carefully read all the articles in the "Athenaeum," and took from them
much the same impression as you convey in your letter, for which I thank
you. I believe that old sinner, Sir J. Barrow (24/3. Sir John Barrow,
(1764-1848): Secretary to the Admiralty. has been at the bottom of all the
money wasted over the naval expeditions. So strongly have I felt on this
subject, that, when I was appointed on a committee for Nat. Hist.
instructions for the present expedition, had I been able to attend I had
resolved to express my opinion on the little advantage, comparatively to
the expense, gained by them. There have been, I believe, from the
beginning eighteen expeditions; this strikes me as monstrous, considering
how little is known, for instance, on the interior of Australia. The
country has paid dear for Sir John's hobbyhorse. I have very little doubt
that Dr. King is quite right in the advantage of land expeditions as far
as geography is concerned; and that is now the chief object. (24/4. This
sentence would imply that Darwin thought it hopeless to rescue Sir J.
Franklin's expedition. If so, the letter must be, at least, as late as
1850. If the eighteen expeditions mentioned above are "search
expeditions," it would also bring the date of the letter to 1850.)

LETTER 25. TO RICHARD OWEN. Down {March 26th, 1848}.

My dear Owen

I do not know whether your MS. instructions are sent in; but even if they
are not sent in, I daresay what I am going to write will be absolutely
superfluous (25/1. The results of Mr. Darwin's experience given in the
above letter were embodied by Prof. Owen in the section "On the Use of the
Microscope on Board Ship," forming part of the article "Zoology" in the
"Manual of Scientific Enquiry, Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty's Navy"
(London, 1849).), but I have derived such infinitely great advantage from
my new simple microscope, in comparison with the one which I used on board
the "Beagle," and which was recommended to me by R. Brown ("Life and
Letters," I., page 145.), that I cannot forego the mere chance of
advantage of urging this on you. The leading point of difference consists
simply in having the stage for saucers very large and fixed. Mine will
hold a saucer three inches in inside diameter. I have never seen such a
microscope as mine, though Chevalier's (from whose plan many points of
mine are taken), of Paris, approaches it pretty closely. I fully
appreciate the utter ABSURDITY of my giving you advice about means of
dissecting; but I have appreciated myself the enormous disadvantage of
having worked with a bad instrument, though thought a few years since the
best. Please to observe that without you call especial attention to this
point, those ignorant of Natural History will be sure to get one of the
fiddling instruments sold in shops. If you thought fit, I would point out
the differences, which, from my experience, make a useful microscope for
the kind of dissection of the invertebrates which a person would be likely
to attempt on board a vessel. But pray again believe that I feel the
absurdity of this letter, and I write merely from the chance of yourself,
possessing great skill and having worked with good instruments, {not
being} possibly fully aware what an astonishing difference the kind of
microscope makes for those who have not been trained in skill for
dissection under water. When next I come to town (I was prevented last
time by illness) I must call on you, and report, for my own satisfaction,
a really (I think) curious point I have made out in my beloved barnacles.
You cannot tell how much I enjoyed my talk with you here.

Ever, my dear Owen, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

P.S.—If I do not hear, I shall understand that my letter is
superfluous. Smith and Beck were so pleased with the simple microscope
they made for me, that they have made another as a model. If you are
consulted by any young naturalists, do recommend them to look at this. I
really feel quite a personal gratitude to this form of microscope, and
quite a hatred to my old one.

LETTER 26. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down {April 1st, 1848.}

Thank you for your note and giving me a chance of seeing you in town; but
it was out of my power to take advantage of it, for I had previously
arranged to go up to London on Monday. I should have much enjoyed seeing
you. Thanks also for your address (26/1. An introductory lecture delivered
in March 1848 at the first meeting of a Society "for giving instructions
to the working classes in Ipswich in various branches of science, and more
especially in natural history" ("Memoir of the Rev. J.S. Henslow," by
Leonard Jenyns, page 150.), which I like very much. The anecdote about
Whewell and the tides I had utterly forgotten; I believe it is near enough
to the truth. I rather demur to one sentence of yours—viz., "However
delightful any scientific pursuit may be, yet, if it should be wholly
unapplied, it is of no more use than building castles in the air." Would
not your hearers infer from this that the practical use of each scientific
discovery ought to be immediate and obvious to make it worthy of
admiration? What a beautiful instance chloroform is of a discovery made
from purely scientific researches, afterwards coming almost by chance into
practical use! For myself I would, however, take higher ground, for I
believe there exists, and I feel within me, an instinct for truth, or
knowledge or discovery, of something of the same nature as the instinct of
virtue, and that our having such an instinct is reason enough for
scientific researches without any practical results ever ensuing from
them. You will wonder what makes me run on so, but I have been working
very hard for the last eighteen months on the anatomy, etc., of the
Cirripedia (on which I shall publish a monograph), and some of my friends
laugh at me, and I fear the study of the Cirripedia will ever remain
"wholly unapplied," and yet I feel that such study is better than
castle-building.

I was indeed delighted to see your handwriting; but I felt almost sorry
when I beheld how long a letter you had written. I know that you are
indomitable in work, but remember how precious your time is, and do not
waste it on your friends, however much pleasure you may give them. Such a
letter would have cost me half-a-day's work. How capitally you seem going
on! I do envy you the sight of all the glorious vegetation. I am much
pleased and surprised that you have been able to observe so much in the
animal world. No doubt you keep a journal, and an excellent one it will
be, I am sure, when published. All these animal facts will tell capitally
in it. I can quite comprehend the difficulty you mention about not knowing
what is known zoologically in India; but facts observed, as you will
observe them, are none the worse for reiterating. Did you see Mr. Blyth in
Calcutta? He would be a capital man to tell you what is known about Indian
Zoology, at least in the Vertebrata. He is a very clever, odd, wild
fellow, who will never do what he could do, from not sticking to any one
subject. By the way, if you should see him at any time, try not to forget
to remember me very kindly to him; I liked all I saw of him. Your letter
was the very one to charm me, with all its facts for my Species-book, and
truly obliged I am for so kind a remembrance of me. Do not forget to make
enquiries about the origin, even if only traditionally known, of any
varieties of domestic quadrupeds, birds, silkworms, etc. Are there
domestic bees? if so hives ought to be brought home. Of all the facts you
mention, that of the wild {illegible}, when breeding with the domestic,
producing offspring somewhat sterile, is the most surprising: surely they
must be different species. Most zoologists would absolutely disbelieve
such a statement, and consider the result as a proof that they were
distinct species. I do not go so far as that, but the case seems highly
improbable. Blyth has studied the Indian Ruminantia. I have been much
struck about what you say of lowland plants ascending mountains, but the
alpine not descending. How I do hope you will get up some mountains in
Borneo; how curious the result will be! By the way, I never heard from you
what affinity the Maldive flora has, which is cruel, as you tempted me by
making me guess. I sometimes groan over your Indian journey, when I think
over all your locked up riches. When shall I see a memoir on Insular
floras, and on the Pacific? What a grand subject Alpine floras of the
world (27/1. Mr. William Botting Hemsley, F.R.S., of the Royal Gardens,
Kew, is now engaged on a monograph of the high-level Alpine plants of the
world.) would be, as far as known; and then you have never given a coup
d'oeil on the similarity and dissimilarity of Arctic and Antarctic floras.
Well, thank heavens, when you do come back you will be nolens volens a
fixture. I am particularly glad you have been at the Coal; I have often
since you went gone on maundering on the subject, and I shall never rest
easy in Down churchyard without the problem be solved by some one before I
die. Talking of dying makes me tell you that my confounded stomach is much
the same; indeed, of late has been rather worse, but for the last year, I
think, I have been able to do more work. I have done nothing besides the
barnacles, except, indeed, a little theoretical paper on erratic boulders
(27/2. "On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a Lower to a Higher
Level" ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume IV., pages 315-23. 1848). In
this paper Darwin favours the view that the transport of boulders was
effected by coast-ice. An earlier paper entitled "Notes on the Effects
produced by the ancient Glaciers of Caernarvonshire, and on the Boulders
transported by floating Ice" ("Phil. Mag." 1842, page 352) is spoken of by
Sir Archibald Geikie as standing "almost at the top of the long list of
English contributions to the history of the Ice Age" ("Charles Darwin,"
"Nature" Series, page 23).), and Scientific Geological Instructions for
the Admiralty Volume (27/3. "A manual of Scientific Enquiry, prepared for
the use of Her Majesty's Navy, and adapted for Travellers in General."
Edited by Sir John F.W. Herschel, Bart. Section VI.—Geology—by
Charles Darwin. London, 1849. See "Life and Letters," pages 328-9.), which
cost me some trouble. This work, which is edited by Sir J. Herschel, is a
very good job, inasmuch as the captains of men-of-war will now see that
the Admiralty cares for science, and so will favour naturalists on board.
As for a man who is not scientific by nature, I do not believe
instructions will do him any good; and if he be scientific and good for
anything the instructions will be superfluous. I do not know who does the
Botany; Owen does the Zoology, and I have sent him an account of my new
simple microscope, which I consider perfect, even better than yours by
Chevalier. N.B. I have got a 1/8 inch object-glass, and it is grand. I
have been getting on well with my beloved Cirripedia, and get more skilful
in dissection. I have worked out the nervous system pretty well in several
genera, and made out their ears and nostrils (27/4. For the olfactory sacs
see Darwin's "Monograph of the Cirripedia," 1851, page 52.), which were
quite unknown. I have lately got a bisexual cirripede, the male being
microscopically small and parasitic within the sack of the female. I tell
you this to boast of my species theory, for the nearest closely allied
genus to it is, as usual, hermaphrodite, but I had observed some minute
parasites adhering to it, and these parasites I now can show are
supplemental males, the male organs in the hermaphrodite being unusually
small, though perfect and containing zoosperms: so we have almost a
polygamous animal, simple females alone being wanting. I never should have
made this out, had not my species theory convinced me, that an
hermaphrodite species must pass into a bisexual species by insensibly
small stages; and here we have it, for the male organs in the
hermaphrodite are beginning to fail, and independent males ready formed.
But I can hardly explain what I mean, and you will perhaps wish my
barnacles and species theory al Diavolo together. But I don't care what
you say, my species theory is all gospel. We have had only one party here:
viz., of the Lyells, Forbes, Owen, and Ramsay, and we both missed you and
Falconer very much...I know more of your history than you will suppose,
for Miss Henslow most good-naturedly sent me a packet of your letters, and
she wrote me so nice a little note that it made me quite proud. I have not
heard of anything in the scientific line which would interest you. Sir H.
De la Beche (27/5. The Presidential Address delivered by De la Beche
before the Geological Society in 1848 ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume
IV., "Proceedings," page xxi, 1848).) gave a very long and rather dull
address; the most interesting part was from Sir J. Ross. Mr. Beete Jukes
figured in it very prominently: it really is a very nice quality in Sir
Henry, the manner in which he pushes forward his subordinates. Jukes has
since read what was considered a very valuable paper. The man, not content
with moustaches, now sports an entire beard, and I am sure thinks himself
like Jupiter tonans. There was a short time since a not very creditable
discussion at a meeting of the Royal Society, where Owen fell foul of
Mantell with fury and contempt about belemnites. What wretched doings come
from the order of fame; the love of truth alone would never make one man
attack another bitterly. My paper is full, so I must wish you with all my
heart farewell. Heaven grant that your health may keep good.

LETTER 28. TO J.S. HENSLOW. The Lodge, Malvern, May 6th, 1849.

Your kind note has been forwarded to me here. You will be surprised to
hear that we all—children, servants, and all—have been here
for nearly two months. All last autumn and winter my health grew worse and
worse: incessant sickness, tremulous hands, and swimming head. I thought I
was going the way of all flesh. Having heard of much success in some cases
from the cold-water cure, I determined to give up all attempts to do
anything and come here and put myself under Dr. Gully. It has answered to
a considerable extent: my sickness much checked and considerable strength
gained. Dr. G., moreover (and I hear he rarely speaks confidently), tells
me he has little doubt but that he can cure me in the course of time—time,
however, it will take. I have experienced enough to feel sure that the
cold-water cure is a great and powerful agent and upsetter of all
constitutional habits. Talking of habits, the cruel wretch has made me
leave off snuff—that chief solace of life. We thank you most
sincerely for your prompt and early invitation to Hitcham for the British
Association for 1850 (28/1. The invitation was probably not for 1850, but
for 1851, when the Association met at Ipswich.): if I am made well and
strong, most gladly will I accept it; but as I have been hitherto, a drive
every day of half a dozen miles would be more than I could stand with
attending any of the sections. I intend going to Birmingham (28/2. The
Association met at Birmingham in 1849.) if able; indeed, I am bound to
attempt it, for I am honoured beyond all measure in being one of the
Vice-Presidents. I am uncommonly glad you will be there; I fear, however,
we shall not have any such charming trips as Nuneham and Dropmore. (28/3.
In a letter to Hooker (October 12th, 1849) Darwin speaks of "that heavenly
day at Dropmore." ("Life and Letters," I., page 379.)) We shall stay here
till at least June 1st, perhaps till July 1st; and I shall have to go on
with the aqueous treatment at home for several more months. One most
singular effect of the treatment is that it induces in most people, and
eminently in my case, the most complete stagnation of mind. I have ceased
to think even of barnacles! I heard some time since from Hooker...How
capitally he seems to have succeeded in all his enterprises! You must be
very busy now. I happened to be thinking the other day over the Gamlingay
trip to the Lilies of the Valley (28/4. The Lily of the Valley
(Convallaria majalis) is recorded from Gamlingay by Professor Babington in
his "Flora of Cambridgeshire," page 234. (London, 1860.)): ah, those were
delightful days when one had no such organ as a stomach, only a mouth and
the masticating appurtenances. I am very much surprised at what you say,
that men are beginning to work in earnest {at} Botany. What a loss it will
be for Natural History that you have ceased to reside all the year in
Cambridge!

LETTER 29. TO J.F. ROYLE. Down, September 1st {184-?}.

I return you with very many thanks your valuable work. I am sure I have
not lost any slip or disarranged the loose numbers. I have been interested
by looking through the volumes, though I have not found quite so much as I
had thought possible about the varieties of the Indian domestic animals
and plants, and the attempts at introduction have been too recent for the
effects (if any) of climate to have been developed. I have, however, been
astonished and delighted at the evidence of the energetic attempts to do
good by such numbers of people, and most of them evidently not personally
interested in the result. Long may our rule flourish in India. I declare
all the labour shown in these transactions is enough by itself to make one
proud of one's countrymen...

LETTER 30. TO HUGH STRICKLAND.

(30/1. The first paragraph of this letter is published in the "Life and
Letters," I., page 372, as part of a series of letters to Strickland,
beginning at page 365, where a biographical note by Professor Newton is
also given. Professor Newton wrote: "In 1841 he brought the subject of
Natural History Nomenclature before the British Association, and prepared
the code of rules for Zoological Nomenclature, now known by his name—the
principles of which are very generally accepted." Mr. Darwin's reasons
against appending the describer's name to that of the species are given in
"Life and Letters," page 366. The present letter is of interest as giving
additional details in regard to Darwin's difficulties.)

Down, February 10th {1849}.

I have again to thank you cordially for your letter. Your remarks shall
fructify to some extent, and I will try to be more faithful to rigid
virtue and priority; but as for calling Balanus "Lepas" (which I did not
think of) I cannot do it, my pen won't write it—it is impossible. I
have great hopes some of my difficulties will disappear, owing to wrong
dates in Agassiz and to my having to run several genera into one; for I
have as yet gone, in but few cases, to original sources. With respect to
adopting my own notions in my Cirripedia book, I should not like to do so
without I found others approved, and in some public way; nor indeed is it
well adapted, as I can never recognise a species without I have the
original specimen, which fortunately I have in many cases in the British
Museum. Thus far I mean to adopt my notion, in never putting mihi or
Darwin after my own species, and in the anatomical text giving no authors'
names at all, as the systematic part will serve for those who want to know
the history of the species as far as I can imperfectly work it out.

I have had a note from W. Thompson (30/2. Mr. Thompson is described in the
preface to the Lepadidae as "the distinguished Natural Historian of
Ireland.") this morning, and he tells me Ogleby has some scheme identical
almost with mine. I feel pretty sure there is a growing general aversion
to the appendage of author's name, except in cases where necessary. Now at
this moment I have seen specimens ticketed with a specific name and no
reference—such are hopelessly inconvenient; but I declare I would
rather (as saving time) have a reference to some second systematic work
than to the original author, for I have cases of this which hardly help me
at all, for I know not where to look amongst endless periodical foreign
papers. On the other hand, one can get hold of most systematic works and
so follow up the scent, and a species does not long lie buried exclusively
in a paper.

I thank you sincerely for your very kind offer of occasionally assisting
me with your opinion, and I will not trespass much. I have a case, but {it
is one} about which I am almost sure; and so to save you writing, if I
conclude rightly, pray do not answer, and I shall understand silence as
assent.

Olfers in 1814 made Lepas aurita Linn. into the genus Conchoderma; {Oken}
in 1815 gave the name Branta to Lepas aurita and vittata, and by so doing
he alters essentially Olfers' generic definition. Oken was right (as it
turns out), and Lepas aurita and vittata must form together one genus.
(30/3. In the "Monograph on the Cirripedia" (Lepadidae) the names used are
Conchoderma aurita and virgata.) (I leave out of question a multitude of
subsequent synonyms.) Now I suppose I must retain Conchoderma of Olfers. I
cannot make out a precise rule in the "British Association Report" for
this. When a genus is cut into two I see that the old name is retained for
part and altered to it; so I suppose the definition may be enlarged to
receive another species—though the cases are somewhat different. I
should have had no doubt if Lepas aurita and vittata had been made into
two genera, for then when run together the oldest of the two would have
been retained. Certainly to put Conchoderma Olfers is not quite correct
when applied to the two species, for such was not Olfers' definition and
opinion. If I do not hear, I shall retain Conchoderma for the two
species...

P.S.—Will you by silence give consent to the following?

Linnaeus gives no type to his genus Lepas, though L. balanus comes first.
Several oldish authors have used Lepas exclusively for the pedunculate
division, and the name has been given to the family and compounded in
sub-generic names. Now, this shows that old authors attached the name
Lepas more particularly to the pedunculate division. Now, if I were to use
Lepas for Anatifera (30/4. Anatifera and Anatifa were used as generic
names for what Linnaeus and Darwin called Lepas anatifera.) I should get
rid of the difficulty of the second edition of Hill and of the difficulty
of Anatifera vel Anatifa. Linnaeus's generic description is equally
applicable to Anatifera and Balanus, though the latter stands first. Must
the mere precedence rigorously outweigh the apparent opinion of many old
naturalists? As for using Lepas in place of Balanus, I cannot. Every one
will understand what is meant by Lepas Anatifera, so that convenience
would be wonderfully thus suited. If I do not hear, I shall understand I
have your consent.

LETTER 31. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(31/1. In the "Life and Letters," I., page 392, is a letter to Sir J.D.
Hooker from Mr. Darwin, to whom the former had dedicated his "Himalayan
Journals." Mr. Darwin there wrote: "Your letter, received this morning,
has interested me extremely, and I thank you sincerely for telling me your
old thoughts and aspirations." The following is the letter referred to,
which at our request Sir Joseph has allowed us to publish.)

Kew, March 1st, 1854.

Now that my book (31/2. "Himalayan Journals," 2 volumes. London, 1854.)
has been publicly acknowledged to be of some value, I feel bold to write
to you; for, to tell you the truth, I have never been without a misgiving
that the dedication might prove a very bad compliment, however kindly I
knew you would receive it. The idea of the dedication has been present to
me from a very early date: it was formed during the Antarctic voyage, out
of love for your own "Journal," and has never deserted me since; nor would
it, I think, had I never known more of you than by report and as the
author of the said "Naturalist's Journal." Short of the gratification I
felt in getting the book out, I know no greater than your kind, hearty
acceptation of the dedication; and, had the reviewers gibbeted me, the
dedication would alone have given me real pain. I have no wish to assume a
stoical indifference to public opinion, for I am well alive to it, and the
critics might have irritated me sorely, but they could never have caused
me the regret that the association of your name with a bad book of mine
would have.

You will laugh when I tell you that, my book out, I feel past the meridian
of life! But you do not know how from my earliest childhood I nourished
and cherished the desire to make a creditable journey in a new country,
and write such a respectable account of its natural features as should
give me a niche amongst the scientific explorers of the globe I inhabit,
and hand my name down as a useful contributor of original matter. A
combination of most rare advantages has enabled me to gain as much of my
object as contents me, for I never wished to be greatest amongst you, nor
did rivalry ever enter my thoughts. No ulterior object has ever been
present to me in this pursuit. My ambition is fully gratified by the
satisfactory completion of my task, and I am now happy to go on jog-trot
at Botany till the end of my days—downhill, in one sense, all the
way. I shall never have such another object to work for, nor shall I feel
the want of it...As it is, the craving of thirty years is satisfied, and I
now look back on life in a way I never could previously. There never was a
past hitherto to me. The phantom was always in view; mayhap it is only a
"ridiculus mus" after all, but it is big enough for me...

(32/1. The story of Huxley's life has been fully given in the interesting
biography edited by Mr. Leonard Huxley. (32/2. "Life and Letters of Thomas
Henry Huxley." London 1900.) Readers of this book and of the "Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin" gain an insight into the relationship between
this pair of friends to which any words of ours can add but little. Darwin
realised to the full the essential strength of Mr. Huxley's nature; he
knew, as all the world now knows, the delicate sense of honour of his
friend, and he was ever inclined to lean on his guidance in practical
matters, as on an elder brother. Of Mr. Huxley's dialectical and literary
skill he was an enthusiastic admirer, and he never forgot what his
theories owed to the fighting powers of his "general agent." (32/3. Ibid.,
I., page 171.) Huxley's estimate of Darwin is very interesting: he valued
him most highly for what was so strikingly characteristic of himself—the
love of truth. He spoke of finding in him "something bigger than ordinary
humanity—an unequalled simplicity and directness of purpose—a
sublime unselfishness." (32/4. Ibid., II., page 94. Huxley is speaking of
Gordon's death, and goes on: "Of all the people whom I have met with in my
life, he and Darwin are the two in whom I have found," etc.) The same
point of view comes out in Huxley's estimate of Darwin's mental power.
(32/5. Ibid., II., page 39.) "He had a clear, rapid intelligence, a great
memory, a vivid imagination, and what made his greatness was the strict
subordination of all these to his love of truth." This, as an analysis of
Darwin's mental equipment, seems to us incomplete, though we do not
pretend to mend it. We do not think it is possible to dissect and label
the complex qualities which go to make up that which we all recognise as
genius. But, if we may venture to criticise, we would say that Mr.
Huxley's words do not seem to cover that supreme power of seeing and
thinking what the rest of the world had overlooked, which was one of
Darwin's most striking characteristics. As throwing light on the quality
of their friendship, we give below a letter which has already appeared in
the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," I., page 366. Mr. L. Huxley gives
an account of the breakdown in health which convinced Huxley's friends
that rest and relief from anxiety must be found for him. Mr. L. Huxley
aptly remarks of the letter, "It is difficult to say whether it does more
honour to him who sent it or to him who received it." (32/6. Huxley's
"Life," I., page 366. Mr. Darwin left to Mr. Huxley a legacy of 1,000
pounds, "as a slight memorial of my lifelong affection and respect for
him."))

LETTER 32. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 23rd, 1873.

My dear Huxley

I have been asked by some of your friends (eighteen in number) to inform
you that they have placed, through Robarts, Lubbock & Co., the sum of
2,100 pounds to your account at your bankers. We have done this to enable
you to get such complete rest as you may require for the re-establishment
of your health; and in doing this we are convinced that we act for the
public interest, as well as in accordance with our most earnest desires.
Let me assure you that we are all your warm personal friends, and that
there is not a stranger or mere acquaintance amongst us. If you could have
heard what was said, or could have read what was, as I believe, our inmost
thoughts, you would know that we all feel towards you, as we should to an
honoured and much loved brother. I am sure that you will return this
feeling, and will therefore be glad to give us the opportunity of aiding
you in some degree, as this will be a happiness to us to the last day of
our lives. Let me add that our plan occurred to several of your friends at
nearly the same time and quite independently of one another.

My dear Huxley, Your affectionate friend, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 33. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(33/1. The following letter is one of the earliest of the long series
addressed to Mr. Huxley.)

Down, April 23rd {1854}.

My dear Sir

I have got out all the specimens, which I have thought could by any
possibility be of any use to you; but I have not looked at them, and know
not what state they are in, but should be much pleased if they are of the
smallest use to you. I enclose a catalogue of habitats: I thought my notes
would have turned out of more use. I have copied out such few points as
perhaps would not be apparent in preserved specimens. The bottle shall go
to Mr. Gray on Thursday next by our weekly carrier.

I am very much obliged for your paper on the Mollusca (33/2. The paper of
Huxley's is "On the Morphology of the Cephalous Mollusca, etc." ("Phil.
Trans. R. Soc." Volume 143, Part I., 1853, page 29.)); I have read it all
with much interest: but it would be ridiculous in me to make any remarks
on a subject on which I am so utterly ignorant; but I can see its high
importance. The discovery of the type or "idea" (33/3. Huxley defines his
use of the word "archetype" at page 50: "All that I mean is the conception
of a form embodying the most general propositions that can be affirmed
respecting the Cephalous Mollusca, standing in the same relation to them
as the diagram to a geometrical theorem, and like it, at once, imaginary
and true.") (in your sense, for I detest the word as used by Owen, Agassiz
& Co.) of each great class, I cannot doubt, is one of the very highest
ends of Natural History; and certainly most interesting to the worker-out.
Several of your remarks have interested me: I am, however, surprised at
what you say versus "anamorphism" (33/4. The passage referred to is at
page 63: "If, however, all Cephalous Mollusks...be only modifications by
excess or defect of the parts of a definite archetype, then, I think, it
follows as a necessary consequence, that no anamorphism takes place in
this group. There is no progression from a lower to a higher type, but
merely a more or less complete evolution of one type." Huxley seems to use
the term anamorphism in a sense differing from that of some writers. Thus
in Jourdan's "Dictionnaire des Termes Usites dans les Sciences
Naturelles," 1834, it is defined as the production of an atypical form
either by arrest or excess of development.), I should have thought that
the archetype in imagination was always in some degree embryonic, and
therefore capable {of} and generally undergoing further development.

Is it not an extraordinary fact, the great difference in position of the
heart in different species of Cleodora? (33/5. A genus of Pteropods.) I am
a believer that when any part, usually constant, differs considerably in
different allied species that it will be found in some degree variable
within the limits of the same species. Thus, I should expect that if great
numbers of specimens of some of the species of Cleodora had been examined
with this object in view, the position of the heart in some of the species
would have been found variable. Can you aid me with any analogous facts?

I am very much pleased to hear that you have not given up the idea of
noticing my cirripedial volume. All that I have seen since confirms
everything of any importance stated in that volume—more especially I
have been able rigorously to confirm in an anomalous species, by the
clearest evidence, that the actual cellular contents of the ovarian tubes,
by the gland-like action of a modified portion of the continuous tube,
passes into the cementing stuff: in fact cirripedes make glue out of their
own unformed eggs! (33/6. On Darwin's mistake in this point see "Life and
Letters," III., page 2.)

Pray believe me, Yours sincerely, C. DARWIN.

I told the above case to Milne Edwards, and I saw he did not place the
smallest belief in it.

LETTER 34. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 2nd, {1854}.

My second volume on the everlasting barnacles is at last published (34/1.
"A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia. II. The Balanidae, the
Verrucidae." Ray Society, 1854.), and I will do myself the pleasure of
sending you a copy to Jermyn Street next Thursday, as I have to send
another book then to Mr. Baily.

And now I want to ask you a favour—namely, to answer me two
questions. As you are so perfectly familiar with the doings, etc., of all
Continental naturalists, I want you to tell me a few names of those whom
you think would care for my volume. I do not mean in the light of puffing
my book, but I want not to send copies to those who from other studies,
age, etc., would view it as waste paper. From assistance rendered me, I
consider myself bound to send copies to: (1) Bosquet of Maestricht, (2)
Milne Edwards, (3) Dana, (4) Agassiz, (5) Muller, (6) W. Dunker of Hesse
Cassel. Now I have five or six other copies to distribute, and will you be
so very kind as to help me? I had thought of Von Siebold, Loven,
d'Orbigny, Kolliker, Sars, Kroyer, etc., but I know hardly anything about
any of them.

My second question, it is merely a chance whether you can answer,—it
is whether I can send these books or any of them (in some cases
accompanied by specimens), through the Royal Society: I have some vague
idea of having heard that the Royal Society did sometimes thus assist
members.

I have just been reading your review of the "Vestiges" (34/2. In his
chapter on the "Reception of the Origin of Species" ("Life and Letters,"
II., pages 188-9), Mr. Huxley wrote: "and the only review I ever have
qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery, is one I
wrote on the 'Vestiges.'" The article is in the "British and Foreign
Medico-chirurgical Review," XIII., 1854, page 425. The "great man"
referred to below is Owen: see Huxley's review, page 439, and Huxley's
"Life." I., page 94.), and the way you handle a great Professor is really
exquisite and inimitable. I have been extremely interested in other parts,
and to my mind it is incomparably the best review I have read on the
"Vestiges"; but I cannot think but that you are rather hard on the poor
author. I must think that such a book, if it does no other good, spreads
the taste for Natural Science.

But I am perhaps no fair judge, for I am almost as unorthodox about
species as the "Vestiges" itself, though I hope not quite so
unphilosophical. How capitally you analyse his notion about law. I do not
know when I have read a review which interested me so much. By Heavens,
how the blood must have gushed into the capillaries when a certain great
man (whom with all his faults I cannot help liking) read it!

I am rather sorry you do not think more of Agassiz's embryological stages
(34/3. See "Origin," Edition VI., page 310: also Letter 40, Note.), for
though I saw how exceedingly weak the evidence was, I was led to hope in
its truth.

LETTER 35. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1854}.

With respect to "highness" and "lowness," my ideas are only eclectic and
not very clear. It appears to me that an unavoidable wish to compare all
animals with men, as supreme, causes some confusion; and I think that
nothing besides some such vague comparison is intended, or perhaps is even
possible, when the question is whether two kingdoms such as the Articulata
or Mollusca are the highest. Within the same kingdom I am inclined to
think that "highest" usually means that form which has undergone most
"morphological differentiation" from the common embryo or archetype of the
class; but then every now and then one is bothered (as Milne Edwards has
remarked) by "retrograde development," i.e., the mature animal having
fewer and less important organs than its own embryo. The specialisation of
parts to different functions, or "the division of physiological labour"
(35/1. A slip of the pen for "physiological division of labour.") of Milne
Edwards exactly agrees (and to my mind is the best definition, when it can
be applied) with what you state is your idea in regard to plants. I do not
think zoologists agree in any definite ideas on this subject; and my ideas
are not clearer than those of my brethren.

LETTER 36. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 2nd {1854}.

I have had the house full of visitors, and when I talk I can do absolutely
nothing else; and since then I have been poorly enough, otherwise I should
have answered your letter long before this, for I enjoy extremely
discussing such points as those in your last note. But what a villain you
are to heap gratuitous insults on my ELASTIC theory: you might as well
call the virtue of a lady elastic, as the virtue of a theory accommodating
in its favours. Whatever you may say, I feel that my theory does give me
some advantages in discussing these points. But to business: I keep my
notes in such a way, viz., in bulk, that I cannot possibly lay my hand on
any reference; nor as far as the vegetable kingdom is concerned do I
distinctly remember having read any discussion on general highness or
lowness, excepting Schleiden (I fancy) on Compositae being highest. Ad. de
Jussieu (36/1. "Monographie de la Famille des Malpighiacees," by Adrien de
Jussieu, "Arch. du Museum." Volume III., page 1, 1843.), in "Arch. du
Museum," Tome 3, discusses the value of characters of degraded flowers in
the Malpighiaceae, but I doubt whether this at all concerns you. Mirbel
somewhere has discussed some such question.

Plants lie under an enormous disadvantage in respect to such discussions
in not passing through larval stages. I do not know whether you can
distinguish a plant low from non-development from one low from
degradation, which theoretically, at least, are very distinct. I must
agree with Forbes that a mollusc may be higher than one articulate animal
and lower than another; if one was asked which was highest as a whole, the
Molluscan or Articulate Kingdom, I should look to and compare the highest
in each, and not compare their archetypes (supposing them to be known,
which they are not.)

But there are, in my opinion, more difficult cases than any we have
alluded to, viz., that of fish—but my ideas are not clear enough,
and I do not suppose you would care to hear what I obscurely think on this
subject. As far as my elastic theory goes, all I care about is that very
ancient organisms (when different from existing) should tend to resemble
the larval or embryological stages of the existing.

I am glad to hear what you say about parallelism: I am an utter
disbeliever of any parallelism more than mere accident. It is very
strange, but I think Forbes is often rather fanciful; his "Polarity"
(36/2. See Letter 41, Note.) makes me sick—it is like "magnetism"
turning a table.

If I can think of any one likely to take your "Illustrations" (36/3.
"Illustrations of Himalayan Plants from Drawings made by J.F. Cathcart."
Folio, 1855.), I will send the advertisement. If you want to make up some
definite number so as to go to press, I will put my name down with
PLEASURE (and I hope and believe that you will trust me in saying so),
though I should not in the course of nature subscribe to any horticultural
work:—act for me.

LETTER 37. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, {May} 29th, 1854.

I am really truly sorry to hear about your {health}. I entreat you to
write down your own case,—symptoms, and habits of life,—and
then consider your case as that of a stranger; and I put it to you,
whether common sense would not order you to take more regular exercise and
work your brain less. (N.B. Take a cold bath and walk before breakfast.) I
am certain in the long run you would not lose time. Till you have a
thoroughly bad stomach, you will not know the really great evil of it,
morally, physically, and every way. Do reflect and act resolutely.
Remember your troubled heart-action formerly plainly told how your
constitution was tried. But I will say no more—excepting that a man
is mad to risk health, on which everything, including his children's
inherited health, depends. Do not hate me for this lecture. Really I am
not surprised at your having some headache after Thursday evening, for it
must have been no small exertion making an abstract of all that was said
after dinner. Your being so engaged was a bore, for there were several
things that I should have liked to have talked over with you. It was
certainly a first-rate dinner, and I enjoyed it extremely, far more than I
expected. Very far from disagreeing with me, my London visits have just
lately taken to suit my stomach admirably; I begin to think that
dissipation, high-living, with lots of claret, is what I want, and what I
had during the last visit. We are going to act on this same principle, and
in a very profligate manner have just taken a pair of season-tickets to
see the Queen open the Crystal Palace. (37/1. Queen Victoria opened the
Crystal Palace at Sydenham on June 10th, 1854.) How I wish there was any
chance of your being there! The last grand thing we were at together
answered, I am sure, very well, and that was the Duke's funeral.

Have you seen Forbes' introductory lecture (37/2. Edward Forbes was
appointed to a Professorship at Edinburgh in May, 1854.) in the "Scotsman"
(lent me by Horner)? it is really ADMIRABLY done, though without anything,
perhaps, very original, which could hardly be expected: it has given me
even a higher opinion than I before had, of the variety and polish of his
intellect. It is, indeed, an irreparable loss to London natural history
society. I wish, however, he would not praise so much that old brown dry
stick Jameson. Altogether, to my taste, it is much the best introductory
lecture I have ever read. I hear his anniversary address is very good.

Adios, my dear Hooker; do be wise and good, and be careful of your
stomach, within which, as I know full well, lie intellect, conscience,
temper, and the affections.

LETTER 38. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 2nd {1854}.

You are a pretty fellow to talk of funking the returning thanks at the
dinner for the medal. (38/1. The Royal medal was given to Sir Joseph in
1854.) I heard that it was decidedly the best speech of the evening, given
"with perfect fluency, distinctness, and command of language," and that
you showed great self-possession: was the latter the proverbially
desperate courage of a coward? But you are a pretty fellow to be so
desperately afraid and then to make the crack speech. Many such an ordeal
may you have to go through! I do not know whether Sir William {Hooker}
would be contented with Lord Rosse's (38/2. President of the Royal Society
1848-54.) speech on giving you the medal; but I am very much pleased with
it, and really the roll of what you have done was, I think, splendid. What
a great pity he half spoiled it by not having taken the trouble just to
read it over first. Poor Hofmann (38/3. August Wilhelm Hofmann, the other
medallist of 1854.) came off in this respect even worse. It is really
almost arrogant insolence against every one not an astronomer.

The next morning I was at a very pleasant breakfast party at Sir R.
Inglis's. (38/4. Sir Robert Inglis, President of the British Association
in 1847. Apparently Darwin was present at the afternoon meeting, but not
at the dinner.) I have received, with very many thanks, the aberrant
genera; but I have not had time to consider them, nor your remarks on
Australian botanical geography.

LETTER 39. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(39/1. The following letter shows Darwin's interest in the adjudication of
the Royal medals. The year 1855 was the last during which he served on the
Council of the Society. He had previously served in 1849-50.)

Down, March 31st, 1855.

I have thought and enquired much about Westwood, and I really think he
amply deserves the gold medal. But should you think of some one with
higher claim I am quite ready to give up. Indeed, I suppose without I get
some one to second it, I cannot propose him.

Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed, and return it to me? Should I
send it to Bell? That is, without you demur or convince me. I had thought
of Hancock, a higher class of labourer; but, as far as I can weigh, he has
not, as yet, done so much as Westwood. I may state that I read the whole
"Classification" (39/2. Possibly Westwood's "Introduction to the Modern
Classification of Insects" (1839).) before I was on the Council, and ever
thought on the subject of medals. I fear my remarks are rather lengthy,
but to do him justice I could not well shorten them. Pray tell me frankly
whether the enclosed is the right sort of thing, for though I was once on
the Council of the Royal, I never attended any meetings, owing to bad
health.

With respect to the Copley medal (39/3. The Copley Medal was given to
Lyell in 1858.), I have a strong feeling that Lyell has a high claim, but
as he has had the Royal Medal I presume that it would be thought
objectionable to propose him; and as I intend (you not objecting and
converting me) to propose W. for the Royal, it would, of course, appear
intolerably presumptuous to propose for the Copley also.

LETTER 40. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 10th, 1855.

Shall you attend the Council of the Royal Society on Thursday next? I have
not been very well of late, and I doubt whether I can attend; and if I
could do anything (pray conceal the scandalous fact), I want to go to the
Crystal Palace to meet the Horners, Lyells, and a party. So I want to know
whether you will speak for me most strongly for Barrande. You know better
than I do his admirable labours on the development of trilobites, and his
most important work on his Lower or Primordial Zone. I enclose an old note
of Lyell's to show what he thinks. With respect to Dana, whom I also
proposed, you know well his merits. I can speak most highly of his
classificatory work on crustacea and his Geographical Distribution. His
Volcanic Geology is admirable, and he has done much good work on coral
reefs.

If you attend, do not answer this; but if you cannot be at the Council,
please inform me, and I suppose I must, if I can, attend.

Thank you for your abstract of your lecture at the Royal Institution,
which interested me much, and rather grieved me, for I had hoped things
had been in a slight degree otherwise. (40/1. "On certain Zoological
Arguments commonly adduced in favour of the hypothesis of the Progressive
Development of Animal Life," Discourse, Friday, April 20, 1855:
"Proceedings R.I." (1855). Published also in "Huxley's Scientific
Memoirs." The lecturer dwelt chiefly on the argument of Agassiz, which he
summarises as follows: "Homocercal fishes have in their embryonic state
heterocercal tails; therefore heterocercality is, so far, a mark of an
embryonic state as compared with homocercality, and the earlier
heterocercal fish are embryonic as compared with the later homocercal." He
shows that facts do not support this view, and concludes generally "that
there is no real parallel between the successive forms assumed in the
development of the life of the individual at present and those which have
appeared at different epochs in the past.") I heard some time ago that
before long I might congratulate you on becoming a married man. (40/2. Mr.
Huxley was married July 21st, 1855.) From my own experience of some
fifteen years, I am very sure that there is nothing in this wide world
which more deserves congratulation, and most sincerely and heartily do I
congratulate you, and wish you many years of as much happiness as this
world can afford.

LETTER 41. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(41/1. The following letter illustrates Darwin's work on aberrant genera.
In the "Origin," Edition I., page 429, he wrote: "The more aberrant any
form is, the greater must be the number of connecting forms which, on my
theory, have been exterminated and utterly lost. And we have some evidence
of aberrant forms having suffered severely from extinction, for they are
generally represented by extremely few species; and such species as do
occur are generally very distinct from each other, which again implies
extinction.")

Down, November 15th {1855?}.

In Schoenherr's Catalogue of Curculionidae (41/2. "Genera et Species
Curculionidum." (C.J. Schoenherr: Paris, 1833-38.)), the 6,717 species are
on an average 10.17 to a genus. Waterhouse (who knows the group well, and
who has published on fewness of species in aberrant genera) has given me a
list of 62 aberrant genera, and these have on an average 7.6 species; and
if one single genus be removed (and which I cannot yet believe ought to be
considered aberrant), then the 61 aberrant genera would have only 4.91
species on an average. I tested these results in another way. I found in
Schoenherr 9 families, including only 11 genera, and these genera (9 of
which were in Waterhouse's list) I found included only 3.36 species on an
average.

This last result led me to Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," in which I found
(excluding thallogens and acrogens) that the genera include each 10.46
species (how near by chance to the Curculionidae), and I find 21 orders
including single genera, and these 21 genera have on average 7.95 species;
but if Lindley is right that Erythroxylon (with its 75 species) ought to
be amongst the Malpighiads, then the average would be only 4.6 per genus.

But here comes, as it appears to me, an odd thing (I hope I shall not
quite weary you out). There are 29 other orders, each with 2 genera, and these
58 genera have on an average 15.07 species: this great number being owing
to the 10 genera in the Smilaceae, Salicaceae (with 220 species),
Begoniaceae, Balsaminaceae, Grossulariaceae, without which the remaining
48 genera have on an average only 5.91 species.

This case of the orders with only 2 genera, the genera notwithstanding
having 15.07 species each, seems to me very perplexing and upsets, almost,
the conclusion deducible from the orders with single genera.

I have gone higher, and tested the alliances with 1, 2, and 3 orders; and
in these cases I find both the genera few in each alliance, and the
species, less than the average of the whole kingdom, in each genus.

All this has amused me, but I daresay you will have a good sneer at me,
and tell me to stick to my barnacles. By the way, you agree with me that
sometimes one gets despondent—for instance, when theory and facts
will not harmonise; but what appears to me even worse, and makes me
despair, is, when I see from the same great class of facts, men like
Barrande deduce conclusions, such as his "Colonies" (41/3. Lyell briefly
refers to Barrande's Bohemian work in a letter (August 31st, 1856) to
Fleming ("Life of Sir Charles Lyell," II., page 225): "He explained to me
on the spot his remarkable discovery of a 'colony' of Upper Silurian
fossils, 3,400 feet deep, in the midst of the Lower Silurian group. This
has made a great noise, but I think I can explain away the supposed
anomaly by, etc." (See Letter 40, Note.) and his agreement with E. de
Beaumont's lines of Elevation, or such men as Forbes with his Polarity
(41/4. Edward Forbes "On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution
of Organised Beings in Time" ("Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," Volume LVII.,
1854, page 332). The author points out that "the maximum development of
generic types during the Palaeozoic period was during its earlier epochs;
that during the Neozoic period towards its later periods." Thus the two
periods of activity are conceived to be at the two opposite poles of a
sphere which in some way represents for him the system of Nature.); I have
not a doubt that before many months are over I shall be longing for the
most dishonest species as being more honest than the honestest theories.
One remark more. If you feel any interest, or can get any one else to feel
any interest on the aberrant genera question, I should think the most
interesting way would be to take aberrant genera in any great natural
family, and test the average number of species to the genera in that
family.

How I wish we lived near each other! I should so like a talk with you on
geographical distribution, taken in its greatest features. I have been
trying from land productions to take a very general view of the world, and
I should so like to see how far it agrees with plants.

LETTER 42. TO MRS. LYELL.

(42/1. Mrs. Lyell is a daughter of the late Mr. Leonard Horner, and widow
of Lieut.-Col. Lyell, a brother of Sir Charles.)

Down, January 26th {1856}.

I shall be very glad to be of any sort of use to you in regard to the
beetles. But first let me thank you for your kind note and offer of
specimens to my children. My boys are all butterfly hunters; and all young
and ardent lepidopterists despise, from the bottom of their souls,
coleopterists.

The simplest plan for your end and for the good of entomology, I should
think, would be to offer the collection to Dr. J.E. Gray for the British
Museum on condition that a perfect set was made out for you. If the
collection was at all valuable, I should think he would be very glad to
have this done. Whether any third set would be worth making out would
depend on the value of the collection. I do not suppose that you expect
the insects to be named, for that would be a most serious labour. If you
do not approve of this scheme, I should think it very likely that Mr.
Waterhouse would think it worth his while to set a series for you,
retaining duplicates for himself; but I say this only on a venture. You
might trust Mr. Waterhouse implicitly, which I fear, as {illegible} goes,
is more than can be said for all entomologists. I presume, if you thought
of either scheme, Sir Charles Lyell could easily see the gentlemen and
arrange it; but, if not, I could do so when next I come to town, which,
however, will not be for three or four weeks.

With respect to giving your children a taste for Natural History, I will
venture one remark—viz., that giving them specimens in my opinion
would tend to destroy such taste. Youngsters must be themselves collectors
to acquire a taste; and if I had a collection of English lepidoptera, I
would be systematically most miserly, and not give my boys half a dozen
butterflies in the year. Your eldest has the brow of an observer, if there
be the least truth in phrenology. We are all better, but we have been of
late a poor household.

LETTER 43. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1855}.

I should have less scruple in troubling you if I had any confidence what
my work would turn out. Sometimes I think it will be good, at other times
I really feel as much ashamed of myself as the author of the "Vestiges"
ought to be of himself. I know well that your kindness and friendship
would make you do a great deal for me, but that is no reason that I should
be unreasonable. I cannot and ought not to forget that all your time is
employed in work certain to be valuable. It is superfluous in me to say
that I enjoy exceedingly writing to you, and that your answers are of the
greatest possible service to me. I return with many thanks the proof on
Aquilegia (43/1. This seems to refer to the discussion on the genus
Aquilegia in Hooker and Thomson's "Flora Indica," 1855, Volume I.,
Systematic Part, page 44. The authors' conclusion is that "all the
European and many of the Siberian forms generally recognised belong to one
very variable species." With regard to cirripedes, Mr. Darwin spoke of
"certain just perceptible differences which blend together and constitute
varieties and not species" ("Life and Letters," I., page 379).): it has
interested me much. It is exactly like my barnacles; but for my particular
purpose, most unfortunately, both Kolreuter and Gartner have worked
chiefly on A. vulgaris and canadensis and atro-purpurea, and these are
just the species that you seem not to have studied. N.B. Why do you not
let me buy the Indian Flora? You are too magnificent.

Now for a short ride on my chief (at present) hobbyhorse, viz. aberrant
genera. What you say under your remarks on Lepidodendron seems just the
case that I want, to give some sort of evidence of what we both believe
in, viz. how groups came to be anomalous or aberrant; and I think some
sort of proof is required, for I do not believe very many naturalists
would at all admit our view.

Thank you for the caution on large anomalous genera first catching
attention. I do not quite agree with your "grave objection to the whole
process," which is "that if you multiply the anomalous species by 100, and
divide the normal by the same, you will then reverse the names..." For, to
take an example, Ornithorhynchus and Echidna would not be less aberrant if
each had a dozen (I do not say 100, because we have no such cases in the
animal kingdom) species instead of one. What would really make these two
genera less anomalous would be the creation of many genera and
sub-families round and radiating from them on all sides. Thus if Australia
were destroyed, Didelphys in S. America would be wonderfully anomalous
(this is your case with Proteaceae), whereas now there are so many genera
and little sub-families of Marsupiata that the group cannot be called
aberrant or anomalous. Sagitta (and the earwig) is one of the most
anomalous animals in the world, and not a bit the less because there are a
dozen species. Now, my point (which, I think is a slightly new point of
view) is, if it is extinction which has made the genus anomalous, as a
general rule the same causes of extinction would allow the existence of
only a few species in such genera. Whenever we meet (which will be on the
23rd {at the} Club) I shall much like to hear whether this strikes you as
sound. I feel all the time on the borders of a circle of truism. Of course
I could not think of such a request, but you might possibly:—if
Bentham does not think the whole subject rubbish, ask him some time to
pick out the dozen most anomalous genera in the Leguminosae, or any great
order of which there is a monograph by which I could calculate the
ordinary percentage of species to genera. I am the more anxious, as the
more I enquire, the fewer are the cases in which it can be done. It cannot
be done in birds, or, I fear, in mammifers. I doubt much whether in any
other class of insects {other than Curculionidae}.

I saw your nice notice of poor Forbes in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," and I
see in the "Athenaeum" a notice of meeting on last Saturday of his
friends. Of course I shall wish to subscribe as soon as possible to any
memorial...

I have just been testing practically what disuse does in reducing parts. I
have made {skeletons} of wild and tame duck (oh the smell of well-boiled,
high duck!), and I find the tame duck ought, according to scale of wild
prototype, to have its two wings 360 grains in weight; but it has only
317, or 43 grains too little, or 1/7 of {its} own two wings too little in
weight. This seems rather interesting to me. (43/2. On the conclusions
drawn from these researches, see Mr. Platt Ball, "The Effects of Use and
Disuse" (Nature Series), 1890, page 55. With regard to his pigeons, Darwin
wrote, in November 1855: "I love them to that extent that I cannot bear to
kill and skeletonise them.")

P.S.—I do not know whether you will think this worth reading over. I
have worked it out since writing my letter, and tabulate the whole.

21 orders with 1 genus, having 7.95 species (or 4.6?).

29 orders with 2 genera, having 15.05 species on an average.

23 orders each with 3 genera, and these genera include on an average 8.2
species.

20 orders each with 4 genera, and these genera include on an average 12.2
species.

27 orders each with above 50 genera (altogether 4716 genera), and these
genera on an average have 9.97 species.

From this I conclude, whether there be many or few genera in an order, the
number of species in a genus is not much affected; but perhaps when {there
is} only one genus in an order it will be affected, and this will depend
whether the {genus} Erythroxylon be made a family of.

LETTER 44. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th {1856}.

I have been particularly glad to get your splendid eloge of Lindley. His
name had been lately passing through my head, and I had hoped that Miers
would have proposed him for the Royal medal. I most entirely agree that
the Copley (44/1. The late Professor Lindley never attained the honour of
the Copley medal. The Royal medal was awarded to him in 1857.) is more
appropriate, and I daresay he would not have valued the Royal. From
skimming through many botanical books, and from often consulting the
"Vegetable Kingdom," I had (ignorant as I am) formed the highest opinion
of his claims as a botanist. If Sharpey will stick up strong for him, we
should have some chance; but the natural sciences are but feebly
represented in the Council. Sir P. Egerton, I daresay, would be strong for
him. You know Bell is out. Now, my only doubt is, and I hope that you will
consider this, that the natural sciences being weak on the Council, and (I
fancy) the most powerful man in the Council, Col. S{abine}, being strong
against Lindley, whether we should have any chance of succeeding. It would
be so easy to name some eminent man whose name would be well-known to all
the physicists. Would Lindley hear of and dislike being proposed for the
Copley and not succeeding? Would it not be better on this view to propose
him for the Royal? Do think of this. Moreover, if Lindley is not proposed
for the Royal, I fear both Royal medals would go {to} physicists; for I,
for one, should not like to propose another zoologist, though Hancock
would be a very good man, and I fancy there would be a feeling against
medals to two botanists. But for whatever Lindley is proposed, I will do
my best. We will talk this over here.

LETTER 45. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 9th {1856}.

...With respect to Huxley, I was on the point of speaking to Crawford and
Strezlecki (who will be on Committee of the Athenaeum) when I bethought me
of how Owen would look and what he would say. Cannot you fancy him, with
slow and gentle voice, asking "Will Mr. Crawford tell me what Mr. Huxley
has done, deserving this honour; I only know that he differs from, and
disputes the authority of Cuvier, Ehrenberg, and Agassiz as of no weight
at all." And when I began to tell Mr. Crawford what to say, I was puzzled,
and could refer him only to some excellent papers in the "Phil. Trans."
for which the medal had been awarded. But I doubt, with an opposing
faction, whether this would be considered enough, for I believe real
scientific merit is not thought enough, without the person is generally
well known. Now I want to hear what you deliberately think on this head:
it would be bad to get him proposed and then rejected; and Owen is very
powerful.

LETTER 46. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1856}.

I have got the Lectures, and have read them. (46/1. The reference is
presumably to the Royal Institution Lectures given in 1854-56. Those which
we have seen—namely, those reprinted in the "Scientific Memoirs,"
Volume I.—"On the Common Plan of Animal Form," page 281; "On certain
Zoological Arguments, etc." page 300; "On Natural History as Knowledge,
Discipline, and Power," page 305, do not seem to us to contain anything
likely to offend; but Falconer's attack in the "Ann. and Mag. of Nat.
Hist." June 1856, on the last-named lecture, shows strong feeling. A reply
by Mr. Huxley appeared in the July number of the same Journal. The most
heretical discussion from a modern standpoint is at page 311, where he
asks how it is conceivable that the bright colours of butterflies and
shells or the elegant forms of Foraminifera can possibly be of service to
their possessors; and it is this which especially struck Darwin, judging
by the pencil notes on his copy of the Lecture.) Though I believe, as far
as my knowledge goes, that Huxley is right, yet I think his tone very much
too vehement, and I have ventured to say so in a note to Huxley. I had not
thought of these lectures in relation to the Athenaeum (46/2. Mr. Huxley
was in 1858 elected to the Athenaeum Club under Rule 2, which provides for
the annual election of "a certain number of persons of distinguished
eminence in science, literature, or the arts, or for public services."),
but I am inclined quite to agree with you, and that we had better pause
before anything is said...(N.B. I found Falconer very indignant at the
manner in which Huxley treated Cuvier in his Royal Institution lectures;
and I have gently told Huxley so.) I think we had better do nothing: to
try in earnest to get a great naturalist into the Athenaeum and fail, is
far worse than doing nothing.

How strange, funny, and disgraceful that nearly all (Faraday and Sir J.
Herschel at least exceptions) our great men are in quarrels in couplets;
it never struck me before...

LETTER 47. C. LYELL TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(47/1. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 72, is given a letter (June
16th, 1856) to Lyell, in which Darwin exhales his indignation over the
"extensionists" who created continents ad libitum to suit the convenience
of their theories. On page 74 a fuller statement of his views is given in
a letter dated June 25th. We have not seen Lyell's reply to this, but his
reply to Darwin's letter of June 16th is extant, and is here printed for
the first time.)

53, Harley Street, London, June 17th, 1856.

I wonder you did not also mention D. Sharpe's paper (47/2. "On the Last
Elevation of the Alps, etc." ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XII.,
1856, page 102.), just published, by which the Alps were submerged as far
as 9,000 feet of their present elevation above the sea in the Glacial
period and then since uplifted again. Without admitting this, you would
probably convey the alpine boulders to the Jura by marine currents, and if
so, make the Alps and Jura islands in the glacial sea. And would not the
Glacial theory, as now very generally understood, immerse as much of
Europe as I did in my original map of Europe, when I simply expressed all
the area which at some time or other had been under water since the
commencement of the Eocene period? I almost suspect the glacial
submergence would exceed it.

But would not this be a measure of the movement in every other area,
northern (arctic), antarctic, or tropical, during an equal period—oceanic
or continental? For the conversion of sea into land would always equal the
turning of much land into sea.

But all this would be done in a fraction of the Pliocene period; the
Glacial shells are barely 1 per cent. extinct species. Multiply this by
the older Pliocene and Miocene epochs.

You also forget an author who, by means of atolls, contrived to submerge
archipelagoes (or continents?), the mountains of which must originally
have differed from each other in height 8,000 (or 10,000?) feet, so that
they all just rose to the surface at one level, or their sites are marked
by buoys of coral. I could never feel sure whether he meant this
tremendous catastrophe, all brought about by what Sedgwick called "Lyell's
niggling operations," to have been effected during the era of existing
species of corals. Perhaps you can tell me, for I am really curious to
know...(47/3. The author referred to is of course Darwin.)

Now, although there is nothing in my works to warrant the building up of
continents in the Atlantic and Pacific even since the Eocene period, yet,
as some of the rocks in the central Alps are in part Eocene, I begin to
think that all continents and oceans may be chiefly, if not all,
post-Eocene, and Dana's "Atlantic Ocean" of the Lower Silurian is childish
(see the Anniversary Address, 1856). (47/4. Probably Dana's Anniversary
Address to the "American Association for the Advancement of Science,"
published in the "Proceedings" 1856.) But how far you are at liberty to
call up continents from "the vasty deep" as often as you want to convey a
Helix from the United States to Europe in Miocene or Pliocene periods is a
question; for the ocean is getting deeper of late, and Haughton says the
mean depth is eleven miles! by his late paper on tides. (47/5. "On the
Depth of the Sea deducible from Tidal Observations" ("Proc. Irish Acad."
Volume VI., page 354, 1853-54).) I shall be surprised if this turns out
true by soundings.

I thought your mind was expanding so much in regard to time that you would
have been going ahead in regard to the possibility of mountain-chains
being created in a fraction of the period required to convert a swan into
a goose, or vice versa. Nine feet did the Rimutaka chain of New Zealand
gain in height in January, 1855, and a great earthquake has occurred in
New Zealand every seven years for half a century nearly. The
"Washingtonia" (Californian conifer) (47/6. Washingtonia, or Wellingtonia,
better known as Sequoia. Asa Gray, writing in 1872, states his belief that
"no Sequoia now alive can sensibly antedate the Christian era"
("Scientific Papers," II., page 144).) lately exhibited was four thousand
years old, so that one individual might see a chain of hills rise, and
rise with it, much {more} a species—and those islands which J.
Hooker describes as covered with New Zealand plants three hundred (?)
miles to the N.E. (?) of New Zealand may have been separated from the
mainland two or three or four generations of Washingtonia ago.

If the identity of the land-shells of all the hundreds of British Isles be
owing to their having been united since the Glacial period, and the
discordance, almost total, of the shells of Porto Santo and Madeira be
owing to their having been separated {during} all the newer and possibly
older Pliocene periods, then it gives us a conception of time which will
aid you much in your conversion of species, if immensity of time will do
all you require; for the Glacial period is thus shown, as we might have
anticipated, to be contemptible in duration or in distance from us, as
compared to the older Pliocene, let alone the Miocene, when our
contemporary species were, though in a minority, already beginning to
flourish.

The littoral shells, according to MacAndrew, imply that Madeira and the
Canaries were once joined to the mainland of Europe or Africa, but that
those isles were disjoined so long ago that most of the species came in
since. In short, the marine shells tell the same story as the land shells.
Why do the plants of Porto Santo and Madeira agree so nearly? And why do
the shells which are the same as European or African species remain quite
unaltered, like the Crag species, which returned unchanged to the British
seas after being expelled from them by glacial cold, when two millions (?)
of years had elapsed, and after such migration to milder seas? Be so good
as to explain all this in your next letter.

LETTER 48. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 5th {1856}.

I write this morning in great tribulation about Tristan d'Acunha. (48/1.
See "Flora Antarctica," page 216. Though Tristan d'Acunha is "only 1,000
miles distant from the Cape of Good Hope, and 3,000 from the Strait of
Magalhaens, the botany of this island is far more intimately allied to
that of Fuegia than Africa.") The more I reflect on your Antarctic flora
the more I am astounded. You give all the facts so clearly and fully, that
it is impossible to help speculating on the subject; but it drives me to
despair, for I cannot gulp down your continent; and not being able to do
so gives, in my eyes, the multiple creationists an awful triumph. It is a
wondrous case, and how strange that A. De Candolle should have ignored it;
which he certainly has, as it seems to me. I wrote Lyell a long geological
letter (48/2. "Life and Letters," II., page 74.) about continents, and I
have had a very long and interesting answer; but I cannot in the least
gather his opinion about all your continental extensionists; and I have
written again beseeching a verdict. (48/3. In the tenth edition of the
"Principles," 1872, Lyell added a chapter (Chapter XLI., page 406) on
insular floras and faunas in relation to the origin of species; he here
(page 410) gives his reasons against Forbes as an extensionist.) I asked
him to send to you my letter, for as it was well copied it would not be
troublesome to read; but whether worth reading I really do not know; I
have given in it the reasons which make me strongly opposed to continental
extensions.

I was very glad to get your note some days ago: I wish you would think it
worth while, as you intend to have the Laburnum case translated, to write
to "Wien" (that unknown place) (48/4. There is a tradition that Darwin
once asked Hooker where "this place Wien is, where they publish so many
books."), and find out how the Laburnum has been behaving: it really ought
to be known.

The Entada is a beast. (48/5. The large seeds of Entada scandens are
occasionally floated across the Atlantic and cast on the shores of
Europe.); I have never differed from you about the growth of a plant in a
new island being a FAR harder trial than transportal, though certainly
that seems hard enough. Indeed I suspect I go even further than you in
this respect; but it is too long a story.

Thank you for the Aristolochia and Viscum cases: what species were they? I
ask, because oddly these two very genera I have seen advanced as instances
(I forget at present by whom, but by good men) in which the agency of
insects was absolutely necessary for impregnation. In our British
dioecious Viscum I suppose it must be necessary. Was there anything to
show that the stigma was ready for pollen in these two cases? for it seems
that there are many cases in which pollen is shed long before the stigma
is ready. As in our Viscum, insects carry, sufficiently regularly for
impregnation, pollen from flower to flower, I should think that there must
be occasional crosses even in an hermaphrodite Viscum. I have never heard
of bees and butterflies, only moths, producing fertile eggs without
copulation.

With respect to the Ray Society, I profited so enormously by its
publishing my Cirrepedia, that I cannot quite agree with you on confining
it to translations; I know not how else I could possibly have published.

I have just sent in my name for 20 pounds to the Linnaean Society, but I
must confess I have done it with heavy groans, whereas I daresay you gave
your 20 pounds like a light-hearted gentleman...

P.S. Wollaston speaks strongly about the intermediate grade between two
varieties in insects and mollusca being often rarer than the two varieties
themselves. This is obviously very important for me, and not easy to
explain. I believe I have had cases from you. But, if you believe in this,
I wish you would give me a sentence to quote from you on this head. There
must, I think, be a good deal of truth in it; otherwise there could hardly
be nearly distinct varieties under any species, for we should have instead
a blending series, as in brambles and willows.

LETTER 49. TO J.D. HOOKER. July 13th, 1856.

What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful,
blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature! With respect to
crossing, from one sentence in your letter I think you misunderstand me. I
am very far from believing in hybrids: only in crossing of the same
species or of close varieties. These two or three last days I have been
observing wheat, and have convinced myself that L. Deslongchamps is in
error about impregnation taking place in closed flowers; i.e., of course,
I can judge only from external appearances. By the way, R. Brown once told
me that the use of the brush on stigma of grasses was unknown. Do you know
its use?...

You say most truly about multiple creations and my notions. If any one
case could be proved, I should be smashed; but as I am writing my book, I
try to take as much pains as possible to give the strongest cases opposed
to me, and often such conjectures as occur to me. I have been working your
books as the richest (and vilest) mine against me; and what hard work I
have had to get up your New Zealand Flora! As I have to quote you so
often, I should like to refer to Muller's case of the Australian Alps.
Where is it published? Is it a book? A correct reference would be enough
for me, though it is wrong even to quote without looking oneself. I should
like to see very much Forbes's sheets, which you refer to; but I must
confess (I hardly know why) I have got rather to mistrust poor dear
Forbes.

There is wonderful ill logic in his famous and admirable memoir on
distribution, as it appears to me, now that I have got it up so as to give
the heads in a page. Depend on it, my saying is a true one—viz. that
a compiler is a great man, and an original man a commonplace man. Any fool
can generalise and speculate; but oh, my heavens, to get up at second hand
a New Zealand Flora, that is work...

And now I am going to beg almost as great a favour as a man can beg of
another: and I ask some five or six weeks before I want the favour done,
that it may appear less horrid. It is to read, but well copied out, my
pages (about forty!!) on Alpine floras and faunas, Arctic and Antarctic
floras and faunas, and the supposed cold mundane period. It would be
really an enormous advantage to me, as I am sure otherwise to make
botanical blunders. I would specify the few points on which I most want
your advice. But it is quite likely that you may object on the ground that
you might be publishing before me (I hope to publish in a year at
furthest), so that it would hamper and bother you; and secondly you may
object to the loss of time, for I daresay it would take an hour and a half
to read. It certainly would be of immense advantage to me; but of course
you must not think of doing it if it would interfere with your own work.

I do not consider this request in futuro as breaking my promise to give no
more trouble for some time.

From Lyell's letters, he is coming round at a railway pace on the
mutability of species, and authorises me to put some sentences on this
head in my preface.

I shall meet Lyell on Wednesday at Lord Stanhope's, and will ask him to
forward my letter to you; though, as my arguments have not struck him,
they cannot have force, and my head must be crotchety on the subject; but
the crotchets keep firmly there. I have given your opinion on continuous
land, I see, too strongly.

LETTER 50. TO S.P. WOODWARD. Down, July 18th {1856}.

Very many thanks for your kindness in writing to me at such length, and I
am glad to say for your sake that I do not see that I shall have to beg
any further favours. What a range and what a variability in the Cyrena!
(50/1. A genus of Lamellibranchs ranging from the Lias to the present
day.) Your list of the ranges of the land and fresh-water shells certainly
is most striking and curious, and especially as the antiquity of four of
them is so clearly shown.

I have got Harvey's seaside book, and liked it; I was not particularly
struck with it, but I will re-read the first and last chapters.

I am growing as bad as the worst about species, and hardly have a vestige
of belief in the permanence of species left in me; and this confession
will make you think very lightly of me, but I cannot help it. Such has
become my honest conviction, though the difficulties and arguments against
such heresy are certainly most weighty.

LETTER 51. TO C. LYELL. November 10th {1856}.

I know you like all cases of negative geological evidence being upset. I
fancied that I was a most unwilling believer in negative evidence; but yet
such negative evidence did seem to me so strong that in my "Fossil
Lepadidae" I have stated, giving reasons, that I did not believe there
could have existed any sessile cirripedes during the Secondary ages. Now,
the other day Bosquet of Maestricht sends me a perfect drawing of a
perfect Chthamalus (a recent genus) from the Chalk! (51/1. Chthamalus, a
genus of Cirripedia. ("A Monograph on the Sub-class Cirripedia," by
Charles Darwin, page 447. London, 1854.) A fossil species of this genus of
Upper Cretaceous age was named by Bosquet Chthamalus Darwini. See
"Origin," Edition VI., page 284; also Zittel, "Traite de Paleontologie,"
Traduit par Dr. C. Barrois, Volume II., page 540, figure 748. Paris,
1887.) Indeed, it is stretching a point to make it specifically distinct
from our living British species. It is a genus not hitherto found in any
Tertiary bed.

LETTER 52. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, July 9th, 1857.

I am extremely much obliged to you for having so fully entered on my
point. I knew I was on unsafe ground, but it proves far unsafer than I had
thought. I had thought that Brulle (52/1. This no doubt refers to A.
Brulle's paper in the "Comptes rendus" 1844, of which a translation is
given in the "Annals and Mag. of Natural History," 1844, page 484. In
speaking of the development of the Articulata, the author says "that the
appendages are manifested at an earlier period of the existence of an
Articulate animal the more complex its degree of organisation, and vice
versa that they make their appearance the later, the fewer the number of
transformations which it has to undergo.") had a wider basis for his
generalisation, for I made the extract several years ago, and I presume (I
state it as some excuse for myself) that I doubted it, for, differently
from my general habit, I have not extracted his grounds. It was meeting
with Barneoud's paper which made me think there might be truth in the
doctrine. (52/2. Apparently Barneoud "On the Organogeny of Irregular
Corollas," from the "Comptes rendus," 1847, as given in "Annals and Mag.
of Natural History," 1847, page 440. The paper chiefly deals with the fact
that in their earliest condition irregular flowers are regular. The view
attributed to Barneoud does not seem so definitely given in this paper as
in a previous one ("Ann. Sc. Nat." Bot., Tom. VI., page 268.) Your
instance of heart and brain of fish seems to me very good. It was a very
stupid blunder on my part not thinking of the posterior part of the time
of development. I shall, of course, not allude to this subject, which I
rather grieve about, as I wished it to be true; but, alas! a scientific
man ought to have no wishes, no affections—a mere heart of stone.

There is only one point in your letter which at present I cannot quite
follow you in: supposing that Barneoud's (I do not say Brulle's) remarks
were true and universal—i.e., that the petals which have to undergo
the greatest amount of development and modification begin to change the
soonest from the simple and common embryonic form of the petal—if
this were a true law, then I cannot but think that it would throw light on
Milne Edwards' proposition that the wider apart the classes of animals
are, the sooner do they diverge from the common embryonic plan—which
common embryonic {plan} may be compared with the similar petals in the
early bud, the several petals in one flower being compared to the distinct
but similar embryos of the different classes. I much wish that you would
so far keep this in mind, that whenever we meet I might hear how far you
differ or concur in this. I have always looked at Barneoud's and Brulle's
proposition as only in some degree analogous.

P.S. I see in my abstract of Milne Edwards' paper, he speaks of "the most
perfect and important organs" as being first developed, and I should have
thought that this was usually synonymous with the most developed or
modified.

LETTER 53. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(53/1. The following letter is chiefly of interest as showing the amount
and kind of work required for Darwin's conclusions on "large genera
varying," which occupy no more than two or three pages in the "Origin"
(Edition I., page 55). Some correspondence on the subject is given in the
"Life and Letters," II., pages 102-5.)

Down, August 22nd {1857}.

Your handwriting always rejoices the cockles of my heart; though you have
no reason to be "overwhelmed with shame," as I did not expect to hear.

I write now chiefly to know whether you can tell me how to write to
Hermann Schlagenheit (is this spelt right?) (53/2. Schlagintweit.), for I
believe he is returned to England, and he has poultry skins for me from W.
Elliot of Madras.

I am very glad to hear that you have been tabulating some Floras about
varieties. Will you just tell me roughly the result? Do you not find it
takes much time? I am employing a laboriously careful schoolmaster, who
does the tabulating and dividing into two great cohorts, more carefully
than I can. This being so, I should be very glad some time to have Koch,
Webb's Canaries, and Ledebour, and Grisebach, but I do not know even where
Rumelia is. I shall work the British flora with three separate Floras; and
I intend dividing the varieties into two classes, as Asa Gray and Henslow
give the materials, and, further, A. Gray and H.C. Watson have marked for
me the forms, which they consider real species, but yet are very close to
others; and it will be curious to compare results. If it will all hold
good it is very important for me; for it explains, as I think, all
classification, i.e. the quasi-branching and sub-branching of forms, as if
from one root, big genera increasing and splitting up, etc., as you will
perceive. But then comes in, also, what I call a principle of divergence,
which I think I can explain, but which is too long, and perhaps you would
not care to hear. As you have been on this subject, you might like to hear
what very little is complete (for my schoolmaster has had three weeks'
holidays)—only three cases as yet, I see.

BABINGTON—British Flora.
593 species in genera of 5 and 593 (odd chance equal) in
upwards have in a thousand genera of 3 and downwards have
species presenting vars. in a thousand presenting vars.
134/1000.* 37/1000.
(*53/3. This sentence may be interpreted as follows: The number of
species which present varieties are 134 per thousand in genera of 5 species
and upwards. The result is obtained from tabulation of 593 species.)
HOOKER—New Zealand.
Genera with 4 species and With 3 species and downwards
upwards, 150/1000. 114/1000.
GODRON—Central France.
With 5 species and upwards With 3 species and downwards
160/1000. 105/1000.

I do not enter into details on omitting introduced plants and very varying
genera, as Rubus, Salix, Rosa, etc., which would make the result more in
favour.

I enjoyed seeing Henslow extremely, though I was a good way from well at
the time. Farewell, my dear Hooker: do not forget your visit here some
time.

LETTER 54. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 14th {1857}.

On Tuesday I will send off from London, whither I go on that day,
Ledebour's three remaining volumes, Grisebach and Cybele, i.e., all that I
have, and most truly am I obliged to you for them. I find the rule, as
yet, of the species varying most in the large genera universal, except in
Miquel's very brief and therefore imperfect list of the Holland flora,
which makes me very anxious to tabulate a fuller flora of Holland. I shall
remain in London till Friday morning, and if quite convenient to send me
two volumes of D.C. Prodromus, I could take them home and tabulate them. I
should think a volume with a large best known natural family, and a volume
with several small broken families would be best, always supposing that
the varieties are conspicuously marked in both. Have you the volume
published by Lowe on Madeira? If so and if any varieties are marked I
should much like to see it, to see if I can make out anything about
habitats of vars. in so small an area—a point on which I have become
very curious. I fear there is no chance of your possessing Forbes and
Hancock "British Shells," a grand work, which I much wish to tabulate.

Very many thanks for seed of Adlumia cirrhosa, which I will carefully
observe. My notice in the G. Ch. on Kidney Beans (54.1 "On the Agency of
Bees in the Fertilisation of Papilionaceous Flowers" ("Gardeners'
Chronicle," 1857, page 725).) has brought me a curious letter from an
intelligent gardener, with a most remarkable lot of beans, crossed in a
marvellous manner IN THE FIRST GENERATION, like the peas sent to you by
Berkeley and like those experimentalised on by Gartner and by Wiegmann. It
is a very odd case; I shall sow these seeds and see what comes up. How
very odd that pollen of one form should affect the outer coats and size of
the bean produced by pure species!...

LETTER 55. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1857?}.

You know how I work subjects: namely, if I stumble on any general remark,
and if I find it confirmed in any other very distinct class, then I try to
find out whether it is true,—if it has any bearing on my work. The
following, perhaps, may be important to me. Dr. Wight remarks that
Cucurbitaceae (55/1. Wight, "Remarks on the Fruit of the Natural Order
Cucurbitaceae" ("Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." VIII., page 261). R. Wight, F.R.S.
(1796-1872) was Superintendent of the Madras Botanic Garden.) is a very
isolated family, and has very diverging affinities. I find, strongly put
and illustrated, the very same remark in the genera of hymenoptera. Now,
it is not to me at first apparent why a very distinct and isolated group
should be apt to have more divergent affinities than a less isolated
group. I am aware that most genera have more affinities than in two ways,
which latter, perhaps, is the commonest case. I see how infinitely vague
all this is; but I should very much like to know what you and Mr. Bentham
(if he will read this), who have attended so much to the principles of
classification, think of this. Perhaps the best way would be to think of
half a dozen most isolated groups of plants, and then consider whether the
affinities point in an unusual number of directions. Very likely you may
think the whole question too vague to be worth consideration.

LETTER 56. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 8th {1857}.

I now want to ask your opinion, and for facts on a point; and as I shall
often want to do this during the next year or two, so let me say, once for
all, that you must not take trouble out of mere good nature (of which
towards me you have a most abundant stock), but you must consider, in
regard to the trouble any question may take, whether you think it worth
while—as all loss of time so far lessens your original work—to
give me facts to be quoted on your authority in my work. Do not think I
shall be disappointed if you cannot spare time; for already I have
profited enormously from your judgment and knowledge. I earnestly beg you
to act as I suggest, and not take trouble solely out of good-nature.

My point is as follows: Harvey gives the case of Fucus varying remarkably,
and yet in same way under most different conditions. D. Don makes same
remark in regard to Juncus bufonius in England and India. Polygala
vulgaris has white, red, and blue flowers in Faroe, England, and I think
Herbert says in Zante. Now such cases seem to me very striking, as showing
how little relation some variations have to climatal conditions.

Do you think there are many such cases? Does Oxalis corniculata present
exactly the same varieties under very different climates?

How is it with any other British plants in New Zealand, or at the foot of
the Himalaya? Will you think over this and let me hear the result?

One other question: do you remember whether the introduced Sonchus in New
Zealand was less, equally, or more common than the aboriginal stock of the
same species, where both occurred together? I forget whether there is any
other case parallel with this curious one of the Sonchus...

I have been making good, though slow, progress with my book, for facts
have been falling nicely into groups, enlightening each other.

LETTER 57. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Moor Park, Farnham, Surrey {1857?}.

Your letter has been forwarded to me here, where I am profiting by a few
weeks' rest and hydropathy. Your letter has interested and amused me much.
I am extremely glad you have taken up the Aphis (57/1. Professor Huxley's
paper on the organic reproduction of Aphis is in the "Trans. Linn. Soc."
XXII. (1858), page 193. Prof. Owen had treated the subject in his
introductory Hunterian lecture "On Parthenogenesis" (1849). His theory
cannot be fully given here. Briefly, he holds that parthenogenesis is due
to the inheritance of a "remnant of spermatic virtue": when the "spermatic
force" or "virtue" is exhausted fresh impregnation occurs. Huxley severely
criticises both Owen's facts and his theory.) question, but, for Heaven's
sake, do not come the mild Hindoo (whatever he may be) to Owen; your
father confessor trembles for you. I fancy Owen thinks much of this
doctrine of his; I never from the first believed it, and I cannot but
think that the same power is concerned in producing aphides without
fertilisation, and producing, for instance, nails on the amputated stump
of a man's fingers, or the new tail of a lizard. By the way, I saw
somewhere during the last week or so a statement of a man rearing from the
same set of eggs winged and wingless aphides, which seemed new to me. Does
not some Yankee say that the American viviparous aphides are winged? I am
particularly glad that you are ruminating on the act of fertilisation: it
has long seemed to me the most wonderful and curious of physiological
problems. I have often and often speculated for amusement on the subject,
but quite fruitlessly. Do you not think that the conjugation of the
Diatomaceae will ultimately throw light on the subject? But the other day
I came to the conclusion that some day we shall have cases of young being
produced from spermatozoa or pollen without an ovule. Approaching the
subject from the side which attracts me most, viz., inheritance, I have
lately been inclined to speculate, very crudely and indistinctly, that
propagation by true fertilisation will turn out to be a sort of mixture,
and not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable
individuals, as each parent has its parents and ancestors. I can
understand on no other view the way in which crossed forms go back to so
large an extent to ancestral forms. But all this, of course, is infinitely
crude. I hope to be in London in the course of this month, and there are
two or three points which, for my own sake, I want to discuss briefly with
you.

LETTER 58. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, September 26th {1857}.

Thanks for your very pleasant note. It amuses me to see what a bug-bear I
have made myself to you; when having written some very pungent and good
sentence it must be very disagreeable to have my face rise up like an ugly
ghost. (58/1. This probably refers to Darwin's wish to moderate a certain
pugnacity in Huxley.) I have always suspected Agassiz of superficiality
and wretched reasoning powers; but I think such men do immense good in
their way. See how he stirred up all Europe about glaciers. By the way,
Lyell has been at the glaciers, or rather their effects, and seems to have
done good work in testing and judging what others have done...

In regard to classification and all the endless disputes about the
"Natural System," which no two authors define in the same way, I believe
it ought, in accordance to my heterodox notions, to be simply
genealogical. But as we have no written pedigrees you will, perhaps, say
this will not help much; but I think it ultimately will, whenever
heterodoxy becomes orthodoxy, for it will clear away an immense amount of
rubbish about the value of characters, and will make the difference
between analogy and homology clear. The time will come, I believe, though
I shall not live to see it, when we shall have very fairly true
genealogical trees of each great kingdom of Nature.

LETTER 59. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th {1857}.

In my opinion your Catalogue (59/1. It appears from a letter to Sir J.D.
Hooker (December 25th, 1857) that the reference is to the proofs of
Huxley's "Explanatory Preface to the Catalogue of the Palaeontological
Collection in the Museum of Practical Geology," by T.H. Huxley and R.
Etheridge, 1865. Mr. Huxley appends a note at page xlix: "It should be
noted that these pages were written before the appearance of Mr. Darwin's
book on 'The Origin of Species'—a work which has effected a
revolution in biological speculation.") is simply the very best resume, by
far, on the whole science of Natural History, which I have ever seen. I
really have no criticisms: I agree with every word. Your metaphors and
explanations strike me as admirable. In many parts it is curious how what
you have written agrees with what I have been writing, only with the
melancholy difference for me that you put everything in twice as striking
a manner as I do. I append, more for the sake of showing that I have
attended to the whole than for any other object, a few most trivial
criticisms.

I was amused to meet with some of the arguments, which you advanced in
talk with me, on classification; and it pleases me, {that} my long proses
were so far not thrown away, as they led you to bring out here some good
sentences. But on classification (59/2. This probably refers to Mr.
Huxley's discussion on "Natural Classification," a subject hardly
susceptible of fruitful treatment except from an evolutionary standpoint.)
I am not quite sure that I yet wholly go with you, though I agree with
every word you have here said. The whole, I repeat, in my opinion is
admirable and excellent.

LETTER 60. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 28th {1858}.

Hearty thanks for De Candolle received. I have put the big genera in hand.
Also many thanks for your valuable remarks on the affinities of the
species in great genera, which will be of much use to me in my chapter on
classification. Your opinion is what I had expected from what little I
knew, but I much wanted it confirmed, and many of your remarks were more
or less new to me and all of value.

You give a poor picture of the philosophy of Botany. From my ignorance, I
suppose, I can hardly persuade myself that things are quite as bad as you
make them,—you might have been writing remarks on Ornithology! I
shall meditate much on your remarks, which will also come in very useful
when I write and consider my tables of big and small genera. I grieve for
myself to say that Watson agrees with your view, but with much doubt. I
gave him no guide what your opinion was. I have written to A. Gray and to
X., who—i.e. the latter—on this point may be looked at as S.
Smith's Foolometer.

I am now working several of the large local Floras, with leaving out
altogether all the smallest genera. When I have done this, and seen what
the sections of the largest genera say, and seen what the results are of
range and commonness of varying species, I must come to some definite
conclusion whether or not entirely to give up the ghost. I shall then show
how my theory points, how the facts stand, then state the nature of your
grievous assault and yield entirely or defend the case as far as I can
honestly.

Again I thank you for your invaluable assistance. I have not felt the blow
{Hooker's criticisms} so much of late, as I have been beyond measure
interested on the constructive instinct of the hive-bee. Adios, you
terrible worrier of poor theorists!

LETTER 61. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {1858?}

Many thanks for Ledebour and still more for your letter, with its
admirable resume of all your objections. It is really most kind of you to
take so very much trouble about what seems to you, and probably is, mere
vagaries.

I will earnestly try and be cautious. I will write out my tables and
conclusion, and (when well copied out) I hope you will be so kind as to
read it. I will then put it by and after some months look at it with fresh
eyes. I will briefly work in all your objections and Watson's. I labour
under a great difficulty from feeling sure that, with what very little
systematic work I have done, small genera were more interesting and
therefore more attracted my attention.

One of your remarks I do not see the bearing of under your point of view—namely,
that in monotypic genera "the variation and variability" are "much more
frequently noticed" than in polytypic genera. I hardly like to ask, but
this is the only one of your arguments of which I do not see the bearing;
and I certainly should be very glad to know. I believe I am the slowest
(perhaps the worst) thinker in England; and I now consequently fully admit
the full hostility of Urticaceae, which I will give in my tables.

I will make no remarks on your objections, as I do hope you will read my
MS., which will not cost you much trouble when fairly copied out. From my
own experience, I hardly believe that the most sagacious observers,
without counting, could have predicted whether there were more or fewer
recorded varieties in large or small genera; for I found, when actually
making the list, that I could never strike a balance in my mind,—a
good many varieties occurring together, in small or in large genera,
always threw me off the balance...

P.S.—I have just thought that your remark about the much variation
of monotypic genera was to show me that even in these, the smallest
genera, there was much variability. If this be so, then do not answer; and
I will so understand it.

LETTER 62. TO J.D. HOOKER. February 23rd {1858}.

Will you think of some of the largest genera with which you are well
acquainted, and then suppose 4/5 of the species utterly destroyed and
unknown in the sections (as it were) as much as possible in the centre of
such great genera. Then would the remaining 1/5 of the species, forming a
few sections, be, according to the general practice of average good
Botanists, ranked as distinct genera? Of course they would in that case be
closely related genera. The question, in fact, is, are all the species in
a gigantic genus kept together in that genus, because they are really so
very closely similar as to be inseparable? or is it because no chasms or
boundaries can be drawn separating the many species? The question might
have been put for Orders.

LETTER 63. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th {1858}.

I should be very much obliged for your opinion on the enclosed. You may
remember in the three first volumes tabulated, all orders went right
except Labiatae. By the way, if by any extraordinary chance you have not
thrown away the scrap of paper with former results, I wish you would
return it, for I have lost my copy, and I shall have all the division to
do again; but DO NOT hunt for it, for in any case I should have gone over
the calculation again.

Now I have done the three other volumes. You will see that all species in
the six volumes together go right, and likewise all orders in the three
last volumes, except Verbenaceae. Is not Verbenaceae very closely allied
to Labiatae? If so, one would think that it was not mere chance, this
coincidence. The species in Labiatae and Verbenaceae together are between
1/5 and 1/6 of all the species (15,645), which I have now tabulated.

Now, bearing in mind the many local Floras which I have tabulated (belting
the whole northern hemisphere), and considering that they (and authors of
D.C. Prodromus) would probably take different degrees of care in recording
varieties, and the genera would be divided on different principles by
different men, etc., I am much surprised at the uniformity of the result,
and I am satisfied that there must be truth in the rule that the small
genera vary less than the large. What do you think? Hypothetically I can
conjecture how the Labiatae might fail—namely, if some small
divisions of the Order were now coming into importance in the world and
varying much and making species. This makes me want to know whether you
could divide the Labiatae into a few great natural divisions, and then I
would tabulate them separately as sub-orders. I see Lindley makes so many
divisions that there would not be enough in each for an average. I send
the table of the Labiatae for the chance of your being able to do this for
me. You might draw oblique lines including and separating both large and
small genera. I have also divided all the species into two equal masses,
and my rule holds good for all the species in a mass in the six volumes;
but it fails in several (four) large Orders—viz. Labiatae,
Scrophulariaceae, Acanthaceae, and Proteaceae. But, then, when the species
are divided into two almost exactly equal divisions, the divisions with
large genera are so very few: for instance, in Solanaceae, Solanum
balances all others. In Labiatae seven gigantic genera balance all others
(viz. 113), and in Proteaceae five genera balance all others. Now,
according to my hypothetical notions, I am far from supposing that all
genera go on increasing forever, and therefore I am not surprised at this
result, when the division is so made that only a very few genera are on
one side. But, according to my notions, the sections or sub-genera of the
gigantic genera ought to obey my rule (i.e., supposing a gigantic genus
had come to its maximum, whatever increase was still going on ought to be
going on in the larger sub-genera). Do you think that the sections of the
gigantic genera in D.C. Prodromus are generally NATURAL: i.e. not founded
on mere artificial characters? If you think that they are generally made
as natural as they can be, then I should like very much to tabulate the
sub-genera, considering them for the time as good genera. In this case,
and if you do not think me unreasonable to ask it, I should be very glad
of the loan of Volumes X., XI., XII., and XIV., which include Acanthaceae,
Scrophulariaceae, Labiatae, and Proteaceae,—that is, the orders
which, when divided quite equally, do not accord with my rule, and in
which a very few genera balance all the others.

I have written you a tremendous long prose.

LETTER 64. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 8th {1858}.

I am confined to the sofa with boils, so you must let me write in pencil.
You would laugh if you could know how much your note pleased me. I had the
firmest conviction that you would say all my MS. was bosh, and thank God,
you are one of the few men who dare speak the truth. Though I should not
have much cared about throwing away what you have seen, yet I have been
forced to confess to myself that all was much alike, and if you condemned
that you would condemn all my life's work, and that I confess made me a
little low; but I could have borne it, for I have the conviction that I
have honestly done my best. The discussion comes in at the end of the long
chapter on variation in a state of nature, so that I have discussed, as
far as I am able, what to call varieties. I will try to leave out all
allusion to genera coming in and out in this part, till when I discuss the
"Principle of Divergence," which, with "Natural Selection," is the
keystone of my book; and I have very great confidence it is sound. I would
have this discussion copied out, if I could really think it would not bore
you to read,—for, believe me, I value to the full every word of
criticism from you, and the advantage which I have derived from you cannot
be told...

I am glad to hear that poor old Brown is dying so easily...

You will think it paltry, but as I was asked to pay for printing the
Diploma {from a Society of which he had been made an honorary member}, I
did not like to refuse, so I send 1 pound. But I think it a shabby
proceeding. If a gentleman did me some service, though unasked to do it,
and then demanded payment, I should pay him, and think him a shabby dog;
and on this principle I send my 1 pound.

(65/1. The following four letters refer to an inquiry instituted in 1858
by the Trustees of the British Museum as to the disposal of the Natural
History Collections. The inquiry was one of the first steps towards the
establishment of the Cromwell Road Museum, which was effected in 1875.)

LETTER 65. TO R.I. MURCHISON. Down, June 19th {1858}.

I have just received your note. Unfortunately I cannot attend at the
British Museum on Monday. I do not suppose my opinion on the subject of
your note can be of any value, as I have not much considered the subject,
or had the advantage of discussing it with other naturalists. But my
impression is, that there is much weight in what you say about not
breaking up the natural history collection of the British Museum. I think
a national collection ought to be in London. I can, however, see that some
weighty arguments might be advanced in favour of Kew, owing to the immense
value of Sir W. Hooker's collection and library; but these are private
property, and I am not aware that there is any certainty of their always
remaining at Kew. Had this been the case, I should have thought that the
botanical collection might have been removed there without endangering the
other branches of the collections. But I think it would be the greatest
evil which could possibly happen to natural science in this country if the
other collections were ever to be removed from the British Museum and
Library.

LETTER 66. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(66/1. The memorial referred to in the following letter was addressed on
November 18th to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was signed by Huxley,
Bentham, W.H. Harvey, Henfrey, Henslow, Lindley, Busk, Carpenter, and
Darwin. The memorial, which is accessible, as published in the "Gardeners'
Chronicle," November 27th, 1858, page 861, recommended, speaking
generally, the consolidation of the National Botanical collections at Kew.

In February, 1900, a Committee was appointed by the Lords Commissioners of
the Treasury "to consider the present arrangements under which botanical
work is done and collections maintained by the Trustees of the British
Museum, and under the First Commissioner of Works at Kew, respectively;
and to report what changes (if any) in those arrangements are necessary or
desirable in order to avoid duplication of work and collections at the two
institutions." The Committee published their report in March, 1901,
recommending an arrangement similar to that proposed in 1858.)

Down, October 23rd {1858}.

The names which you give as supporting your memorial make me quite
distrust my own judgment; but, as I must say yea or nay, I am forced to
say that I doubt the wisdom of the movement, and am not willing at present
to sign. My reasons, perhaps of very little value, are as follows. The
governing classes are thoroughly unscientific, and the men of art and of
archaeology have much greater weight with Government than we have. If we
make a move to separate from the British Museum, I cannot but fear that we
may go to the dogs. I think we owe our position in large part to the
hundreds of thousands of people who visit the British Museum, attracted by
the heterogeneous mixture of objects. If we lost this support, as I think
we should—for a mere collection of animals does not seem very
attractive to the masses (judging from the Museum of the Zoological
Society, formerly in Leicester Square)—then I do not think we should
get nearly so much aid from Government. Therefore I should be inclined to
stick to the mummies and Assyrian gods as long as we could. If we knew
that Government was going to turn us out, then, and not till then, I
should be inclined to make an energetic move. If we were to separate, I do
not believe that we should have funds granted for the many books required
for occasional reference: each man must speak from his own experience. I
have so repeatedly required to see old Transactions and old Travels, etc.,
that I should regret extremely, when at work at the British Museum, to be
separated from the entire library. The facilities for working at certain
great classes—as birds, large fossils, etc.—are no doubt as
bad as possible, or rather impossible, on the open days; but I have found
the working rooms of the Assistants very convenient for all other classes
on all days.

In regard to the botanical collections, I am too ignorant to express any
opinion. The point seems to be how far botanists would object to travel to
Kew; but there are evidently many great advantages in the transportation.

If I had my own way, I would make the British Museum collection only a
typical one for display, which would be quite as amusing and far more
instructive to the populace (and I think to naturalists) than the present
enormous display of birds and mammals. I would save expense of stuffing,
and would keep all skins, except a few "typicals," in drawers. Thus much
room would be saved, and a little more space could be given to real
workers, who could work all day. Rooms fitted up with thousands of drawers
would cost very little. With this I should be contented. Until I had
pretty sure information that we were going to be turned out, I would not
stir in the matter. With such opponents as you name, I daresay I am quite
wrong; but this is my best, though doubtful, present judgment...

It seems to me dangerous even to hint at a new Scientific Museum—a
popular Museum, and to subsidise the Zoological Gardens; it would, I
think, frighten any Government.

As you say that you have good private information that Government does
intend to remove the collection from the British Museum, the case to me
individually is wholly changed; and as the memorial now stands, with such
expression at its head, I have no objection whatever to sign. I must
express a very strong opinion that it would be an immense evil to remove
to Kensington, not on account of the men of science so much as for the
masses in the whole eastern and central part of London. I further think it
would be a great evil to separate a typical collection (which I can by no
means look at as only popular) from the collection in full. Might not some
expression be added, even stronger than those now used, on the display
(which is a sort of vanity in the curators) of such a vast number of birds
and mammals, with such a loss of room. I am low at the conviction that
Government will never give money enough for a really good library.

I do not want to be crotchety, but I should hate signing without some
expression about the site being easily accessible to the populace of the
whole of London.

I repeat, as things now stand, I shall be proud to sign.

LETTER 68. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 3rd {1858}.

I most entirely subscribe to all you say in your note. I have had some
correspondence with Hooker on the subject. As it seems certain that a
movement in the British Museum is generally anticipated, my main objection
is quite removed; and, as I have told Hooker, I have no objection whatever
to sign a memorial of the nature of the one he sent me or that now
returned. Both seem to me very good. I cannot help being fearful whether
Government will ever grant money enough for books. I can see many
advantages in not being under the unmotherly wing of art and archaeology,
and my only fear was that we were not strong enough to live without some
protection, so profound, I think, is the contempt for and ignorance of
Natural Science amongst the gentry of England. Hooker tells me that I
should be converted into favour of Kensington Gore if I heard all that
could be said in its favour; but I cannot yet help thinking so western a
locality a great misfortune. Has Lyell been consulted? His would be a
powerful name, and such names go for much with our ignorant Governors. You
seem to have taken much trouble in the business, and I honour you for it.

LETTER 69. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 9th {1858}.

I am quite delighted to hear about the Copley and Lyell. (69/1. The Copley
Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to Lyell in 1858.) I have grown hot
with indignation many times thinking of the way the proposal was met last
year, according to your account of it. I am also very glad to hear of
Hancock (Albany Hancock received a Royal Medal in 1858.); it will show the
provincials are not neglected. Altogether the medals are capital. I shall
be proud and bound to help in any way about the eloge, which is rather a
heavy tax on proposers of medals, as I found about Richardson and
Westwood; but Lyell's case will be twenty times as difficult. I will begin
this very evening dotting down a few remarks on Lyell; though, no doubt,
most will be superfluous, and several would require deliberate
consideration. Anyhow, such notes may be a preliminary aid to you; I will
send them in a few days' time, and will do anything else you may wish...

P.S.—I have had a letter from Henslow this morning. He comes here on
{Thursday} 25th, and I shall be delighted to see him; but it stops my
coming to the Club, as I had arranged to do, and now I suppose I shall not
be in London till December 16th, if odds and ends do not compel me to come
sooner. Of course I have not said a word to Henslow of my change of plans.
I had looked forward with pleasure to a chat with you and others.

P.S. 2.—I worked all yesterday evening in thinking, and have written
the paper sent by this post this morning. Not one sentence would do, but
it is the sort of rough sketch which I should have drawn out if I had had
to do it. God knows whether it will at all aid you. It is miserably
written, with horridly bad metaphors, probably horrid bad grammar. It is
my deliberate impression, such as I should have written to any friend who
had asked me what I thought of Lyell's merits. I will do anything else
which you may wish, or that I can.

LETTER 70. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, December 30th {1858}.

I have had this copied to save you trouble, as it was vilely written, and
is now vilely expressed.

Your letter has interested me greatly; but how inextricable are the
subjects which we are discussing! I do not think I said that I thought the
productions of Asia were HIGHER (70/1. On the use of the terms "higher"
and "lower" see Letters 35 and 36.) than those of Australia. I intend
carefully to avoid this expression (70/2. In a paper of pencilled notes
pinned into Darwin's copy of the "Vestiges" occur the words: "Never use
the word (sic) higher and lower."), for I do not think that any one has a
definite idea what is meant by higher, except in classes which can loosely
be compared with man. On our theory of Natural Selection, if the organisms
of any area belonging to the Eocene or Secondary periods were put into
competition with those now existing in the same area (or probably in any
part of the world) they (i.e. the old ones) would be beaten hollow and be
exterminated; if the theory be true, this must be so. In the same manner,
I believe, a greater number of the productions of Asia, the largest
territory in the world, would beat those of Australia, than conversely. So
it seems to be between Europe and North America, for I can hardly believe
in the difference of the stream of commerce causing so great a difference
in the proportions of immigrants. But this sort of highness (I wish I
could invent some expression, and must try to do so) is different from
highness in the common acceptation of the word. It might be connected with
degradation of organisation: thus the blind degraded worm-like snake
(Typhlops) might supplant the true earthworm. Here then would be
degradation in the class, but certainly increase in the scale of
organisation in the general inhabitants of the country. On the other hand,
it would be quite as easy to believe that true earthworms might beat out
the Typhlops. I do not see how this "competitive highness" can be tested
in any way by us. And this is a comfort to me when mentally comparing the
Silurian and Recent organisms. Not that I doubt a long course of
"competitive highness" will ultimately make the organisation higher in
every sense of the word; but it seems most difficult to test it. Look at
the Erigeron canadensis on the one hand and Anacharis (70/3. Anacharis
(Elodea canadensis) and Erigeron canadensis are both successful immigrants
from America.) on the other; these plants must have some advantage over
European productions, to spread as they have. Yet who could discover it?
Monkeys can co-exist with sloths and opossums, orders at the bottom of the
scale; and the opossums might well be beaten by placental insectivores,
coming from a country where there were no monkeys, etc. I should be sorry
to give up the view that an old and very large continuous territory would
generally produce organisms higher in the competitive sense than a smaller
territory. I may, of course, be quite wrong about the plants of Australia
(and your facts are, of course, quite new to me on their highness), but
when I read the accounts of the immense spreading of European plants in
Australia, and think of the wool and corn brought thence to Europe, and
not one plant naturalised, I can hardly avoid the suspicion that Europe
beats Australia in its productions. If many (i.e. more than one or two)
Australian plants are TRULY naturalised in India (N.B. Naturalisation on
Indian mountains hardly quite fair, as mountains are small islands in the
land) I must strike my colours. I should be glad to hear whether what I
have written very obscurely on this point produces ANY effect on you; for
I want to clear my mind, as perhaps I should put a sentence or two in my
abstract on this subject. (70/4. Abstract was Darwin's name for the
"Origin" during parts of 1858 and 1859.)

I have always been willing to strike my colours on former immense tracts
of land in oceans, if any case required it in an eminent degree. Perhaps
yours may be a case, but at present I greatly prefer land in the Antarctic
regions, where now there is only ice and snow, but which before the
Glacial period might well have been clothed by vegetation. You have thus
to invent far less land, and that more central; and aid is got by floating
ice for transporting seed.

I hope I shall not weary you by scribbling my notions at this length.
After writing last to you I began to think that the Malay Land might have
existed through part of the Glacial epoch. Why I at first doubted was from
the difference of existing mammals in different islands; but many are very
close, and some identical in the islands, and I am constantly deceiving
myself from thinking of the little change which the shells and plants,
whilst all co-existing in their own northern hemisphere, have undergone
since the Glacial epoch; but I am convinced that this is most false
reasoning, for the relations of organism to new organisms, when thrown
together, are by far the most important.

When you speak of plants having undergone more change since old geological
periods than animals, are you not rather comparing plants with higher
animals? Think how little some, indeed many, mollusca have changed.
Remember Silurian Nautilus, Lingula and other Brachiopods, and Nucula, and
amongst Echinoderms, the Silurian Asterias, etc.

What you say about lowness of brackish-water plants interests me. I
remember that they are apt to be social (i.e. many individuals in
comparison to specific forms), and I should be tempted to look at this as
a case of a very small area, and consequently of very few individuals in
comparison with those on the land or in pure fresh-water; and hence less
development (odious word!) than on land or fresh-water. But here comes in
your two-edged sword! I should like much to see any paper on plants of
brackish water or on the edge of the sea; but I suppose such has never
been published.

Thanks about Nelumbium, for I think this was the very plant which from the
size of seed astonished me, and which A. De Candolle adduced as a
marvellous case of almost impossible transport. I now find to my surprise
that herons do feed sometimes on {illegible} fruit; and grebes on seeds of
Compositae.

Many thanks for offer of help about a grant for the Abstract; but I should
hope it would sell enough to pay expenses.

I am reading your letter and scribbling as I go on.

Your oak and chestnut case seems very curious; is it not the more so as
beeches have gone to, or come from the south? But I vehemently protest
against you or any one making such cases especial marvels, without you are
prepared to say why each species in any flora is twice or thrice, etc.,
rarer than each other species which grows in the same soil. The more I
think, the more evident is it to me how utterly ignorant we are of the
thousand contingencies on which range, frequency, and extinction of each
species depend.

I have sometimes thought, from Edentata (70/5. No doubt a slip of the pen
for Monotremata.) and Marsupialia, that Australia retains a remnant of the
former and ancient state of the fauna of the world, and I suppose that you
are coming to some such conclusion for plants; but is not the relation
between the Cape and Australia too special for such views? I infer from
your writings that the relation is too special between Fuegia and
Australia to allow us to look at the resemblances in certain plants as the
relics of mundane resemblances. On the other hand, {have} not the Sandwich
Islands in the Northern Hemisphere some odd relations to Australia? When
we are dead and gone what a noble subject will be Geographical
Distribution!

You may say what you like, but you will never convince me that I do not
owe you ten times as much as you can owe me. Farewell, my dear Hooker. I
am sorry to hear that you are both unwell with influenza. Do not bother
yourself in answering anything in this, except your general impression on
the battle between N. and S.

CHAPTER 1.III.—EVOLUTION, 1859-1863.

LETTER 71. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th, 1859.

I this morning received your pleasant and friendly note of November 30th.
The first part of my MS. is in Murray's hands to see if he likes to
publish it. There is no preface, but a short introduction, which must be
read by every one who reads my book. The second paragraph in the
introduction (71/1. "Origin of Species," Edition I., 1859, pages 1 and 2.)
I have had copied verbatim from my foul copy, and you will, I hope, think
that I have fairly noticed your paper in the "Linn. Journal." (71/2. "On
the Tendency of Species to form Varieties, and on the Perpetuation of
Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection." By Charles Darwin
and Alfred Russell Wallace. Communicated by Sir Charles Lyell and J.D.
Hooker. "Journ. Linn. Soc." Volume III., page 45, 1859. (Read July 1st,
1858.)) You must remember that I am now publishing only an abstract, and I
give no references. I shall, of course, allude to your paper on
distribution (71/3. "On the Law which has regulated the Introduction of
New Species" (A.R. Wallace). "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XVI., page 184,
1855. The law alluded to is thus stated by Wallace: "Every species has
come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing
closely allied species" (loc. cit., page 186).); and I have added that I
know from correspondence that your explanation of your law is the same as
that which I offer. You are right, that I came to the conclusion that
selection was the principle of change from the study of domesticated
productions; and then, reading Malthus, I saw at once how to apply this
principle. Geographical distribution and geological relations of extinct
to recent inhabitants of South America first led me to the subject:
especially the case of the Galapagos Islands. I hope to go to press in the
early part of next month. It will be a small volume of about five hundred
pages or so. I will of course send you a copy. I forget whether I told you
that Hooker, who is our best British botanist and perhaps the best in the
world, is a full convert, and is now going immediately to publish his
confession of faith; and I expect daily to see proof-sheets. (71/4. "The
Flora of Australia, etc., an Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania."
London 1859.) Huxley is changed, and believes in mutation of species:
whether a convert to us, I do not quite know. We shall live to see all the
younger men converts. My neighbour and an excellent naturalist, J.
Lubbock, is an enthusiastic convert. I see that you are doing great work
in the Archipelago; and most heartily do I sympathise with you. For God's
sake take care of your health. There have been few such noble labourers in
the cause of Natural Science as you are.

P.S. You cannot tell how I admire your spirit, in the manner in which you
have taken all that was done about publishing all our papers. I had
actually written a letter to you, stating that I would not publish
anything before you had published. I had not sent that letter to the post
when I received one from Lyell and Hooker, urging me to send some MS. to
them, and allow them to act as they thought fair and honestly to both of
us; and I did so.

(71/5. The following is the passage from the Introduction to the "Origin
of Species," referred to in the first paragraph of the above letter.)

"My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three years
more to complete it, and as my health is far from strong, I have been
urged to publish this Abstract. I have more especially been induced to do
this, as Mr. Wallace, who is now studying the Natural History of the Malay
Archipelago, has arrived at almost exactly the same general conclusions
that I have on the origin of species. Last year he sent to me a memoir on
this subject, with a request that I would forward it to Sir Charles Lyell,
who sent it to the Linnean Society, and it is published in the third
volume of the Journal of that Society. Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who
both knew of my work—the latter having read my sketch of 1844—honoured
me by thinking it advisable to publish, with Mr. Wallace's excellent
memoir, some brief extracts from my manuscripts."

LETTER 72. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 3rd, 1859.

With respect to reversion, I have been raking up vague recollections of
vague facts; and the impression on my mind is rather more in favour of
reversion than it was when you were here.

In my abstract (72/1. "The Origin of Species.") I give only a paragraph on
the general case of reversion, though I enter in detail on some cases of
reversion of a special character. I have not as yet put all my facts on
this subject in mass, so can come to no definite conclusion. But as single
characters may revert, I must say that I see no improbability in several
reverting. As I do not believe any well-founded experiments or facts are
known, each must form his opinion from vague generalities. I think you
confound two rather distinct considerations; a variation arises from any
cause, and reversion is not opposed to this, but solely to its
inheritance. Not but what I believe what we must call perhaps a dozen
distinct laws are all struggling against each other in every variation
which ever arises. To give my impression, if I were forced to bet whether
or not, after a hundred generations of growth in a poor sandy soil, a
cauliflower and red cabbage would or would not revert to the same form, I
must say I would rather stake my money that they would. But in such a case
the conditions of life are changed (and here comes the question of direct
influence of condition), and there is to be no selection, the
comparatively sudden effect of man's selection are left to the free play
of reversion.

In short, I dare not come to any conclusion without comparing all facts
which I have collected, and I do not think there are many.

Please do not say to any one that I thought my book on species would be
fairly popular and have a fairly remunerative sale (which was the height
of my ambition), for if it prove a dead failure it would make me the more
ridiculous.

LETTER 73. TO W.H. MILLER. Down, June 5th {1859}.

I thank you much for your letter. Had I seen the interest of my remark I
would have made many more measurements, though I did make several. I
stated the facts merely to give the general reader an idea of the
thickness of the walls. (73/1. The walls of bees' cells: see Letter 173.)

Especially if I had seen that the fact had any general bearing, I should
have stated that as far as I could measure, the walls are by no means
perfectly of the same thickness. Also I should have stated that the chief
difference is when the thickness of walls of the upper part of the hexagon
and of the pyramidal basal plates are contrasted. Will you oblige me by
looking with a strong lens at the bit of comb, brushing off with a knife
the upper thickened edges, and then compare, by eye alone, the thickness
of the walls there with the thickness of the basal plates, as seen in any
cross section. I should very much like to hear whether, even in this way,
the difference is not perceptible. It is generally thus perceptible by
comparing the thickness of the walls of the hexagon (if not taken very
close to the angle) near to the basal plates, where the comparison by eye
is of course easier. Your letter actually turned me sick with panic; from
not seeing any great importance {in the} fact, till I looked at my notes,
I did not remember that I made several measurements. I have now repeated
the same measurements, roughly with the same general results, but the
difference, I think, is hardly double.

I should not have mentioned the thickness of the basal plates at all, had
I not thought it would give an unfair notion of the thickness of the walls
to state the lesser measurements alone.

LETTER 74. TO W.H. MILLER. {1859}

I had no thought that you would measure the thickness of the walls of the
cells; but if you will, and allow me to give your measurements, it will be
an immense advantage. As it is no trouble, I send more specimens. If you
measure, please observe that I measured the thickness of the walls of the
hexagonal prisms not very near the base; but from your very interesting
remarks the lower part of the walls ought to be measured.

Thank you for the suggestion about how bees judge of angles and distances.
I will keep it in mind. It is a complete perplexity to me, and yet
certainly insects can rudely somehow judge of distance. There are special
difficulties on account of the gradation in size between the worker-scells
and the larger drone-cells. I am trying to test the case practically by
getting combs of different species, and of our own bee from different
climates. I have lately had some from the W. Indies of our common bee, but
the cells SEEM certainly to be larger; but they have not yet been
carefully measured. I will keep your suggestion in mind whenever I return
to experiments on living bees; but that will not be soon.

As you have been considering my little discussion in relation to Lord
Brougham (74/1. Lord Brougham's paper on "The Mathematical Structure of
Bees' Cells," read before the National Institute of France in May, 1858.),
and as I have been more vituperated for this part than for almost any
other, I should like just to tell you how I think the case stands. The
discussion viewed by itself is worth little more than the paper on which
it is printed, except in so far as it contains three or four certainly new
facts. But to those who are inclined to believe the general truth of the
conclusion that species and their instincts are slowly modified by what I
call Natural Selection, I think my discussion nearly removes a very great
difficulty. I believe in its truth chiefly from the existence of the
Melipona, which makes a comb so intermediate in structure between that of
the humble and hive-bee, and especially from the new and curious fact of
the bees making smooth cups or saucers when they excavated in a thick
piece of wax, which saucers stood so close that hexagons were built on
their intersecting edges. And, lastly, because when they excavated on a
thin slip of wax, the excavation on both sides of similar smooth basins
was stopped, and flat planes left between the nearly opposed basins. If my
view were wholly false these cases would, I think, never have occurred.
Sedgwick and Co. may abuse me to their hearts' content, but I shall as yet
continue to think that mine is a rational explanation (as far as it goes)
of their method of work.

LETTER 75. TO W.H. MILLER.

Down, December 1st {1859}.

Some months ago you were so kind as to say you would measure the thickness
of the walls of the basal and side plates of the cell of the bee. Could
you find time to do so soon? Why I want it soon, is that I have lately
heard from Murray that he sold at his sale far more copies than he has of
the "Origin of Species," and that I must immediately prepare a new
edition, which I am now correcting. By the way, I hear from Murray that
all the attacks heaped on my book do not seem to have at all injured the
sale, which will make poor dear old Sedgwick groan. If the basal plates
and walls do differ considerably in thickness, as they certainly did in
the one or two cells which I measured without particular care (as I never
thought the point of any importance), will you tell me the bearing of the
fact as simply as you can, for the chance of one so stupid as I am in
geometry being able to understand?

Would the greater thickness of the basal plates and of the rim of the
hexagons be a good adaptation to carry the vertical weight of the cells
filled with honey and supporting clusters of living bees?

Will you endeavour to screw out time and grant me this favour?

P.S. If the result of your measurement of the thickness of the walls turns
out at all what I have asserted, would it not be worth while to write a
little bit of a paper on the subject of your former note; and "pluck" the
bees if they deserve this degradation? Many mathematicians seem to have
thought the subject worthy of attention. When the cells are full of honey
and hang vertically they have to support a great weight. Can the thicker
basal plates be a contrivance to give strength to the whole comb, with
less consumption of wax, than if all the sides of the hexagons were
thickened?

This crude notion formerly crossed my mind; but of course it is beyond me
even to conjecture how the case would be.

A mathematician, Mr. Wright, has been writing on the geometry of bee-cells
in the United States in consequence of my book; but I can hardly
understand his paper. (75/1. Chauncey Wright, "Remarks on the Architecture
of Bees" ("Amer. Acad. Proc." IV., 1857-60, page 432.)

LETTER 76. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(76/1. The date of this letter is unfortunately doubtful, otherwise it
would prove that at an early date he was acquainted with Erasmus Darwin's
views on evolution, a fact which has not always been recognised. We can
hardly doubt that it was written in 1859, for at this time Mr. Huxley was
collecting facts about breeding for his lecture given at the Royal
Institution on February 10th, 1860, on "Species and Races and their
Origin." See "Life and Letters," II., page 281.)

Down {June?} 9 {1859?}.

If on the 11th you have half an hour to spare, you might like to see a
very good show of pigeons, and the enclosed card will admit you.

The history of error is quite unimportant, but it is curious to observe
how exactly and accurately my grandfather (in "Zoonomia," Volume I., page
504, 1794) gives Lamarck's theory. I will quote one sentence. Speaking of
birds' beaks, he says: "All which seem to have been gradually produced
during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to
supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity
with constant improvement of them for the purposes required." Lamarck
published "Hist. Zoolog." in 1809. The "Zoonomia" was translated into many
languages.

LETTER 77. TO C. LYELL. Down, 28 {June 1859}.

It is not worth while troubling you, but my conscience is uneasy at having
forgotten to thank you for your "Etna" (77/1. "On the Structure of Lavas
which have been consolidated on Steep Slopes, with remarks on the Mode of
Origin of Mount Etna, and on the Theory of 'Craters of Elevation'" ("Phil.
Trans. R. Soc." Volume CXLVIII., 1858, page 703).), which seems to me a
magnificent contribution to volcanic geology, and I should think you might
now rest on your oars in this department.

As soon as ever I can get a copy of my book (77/2. "The Origin of
Species," London, 1859.) ready, in some six weeks' or two months' time, it
shall be sent you; and if you approve of it, even to a moderate extent, it
will be the highest satisfaction which I shall ever receive for an amount
of labour which no one will ever appreciate.

LETTER 78. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(78/1. The reference in the following letter is to the proofs of Hooker's
"Australian Flora.")

Down, 28 {July 1859}.

The returned sheet is chiefly that which I received in MS. Parts seem to
me (though perhaps it may be forgetfulness) much improved, and I retain my
former impression that the whole discussion on the Australian flora is
admirably good and original. I know you will understand and not object to
my thus expressing my opinion (for one must form one) so presumptuously. I
have no criticisms, except perhaps I should like you somewhere to say,
when you refer to me, that you refer only to the notice in the "Linnean
Journal;" not that, on my deliberate word of honour, I expect that you
will think more favourably of the whole than of the suggestion in the
"Journal." I am far more than satisfied at what you say of my work; yet it
would be as well to avoid the appearance of your remarks being a criticism
on my fuller work.

I am very sorry to hear you are so hard-worked. I also get on very slowly,
and have hardly as yet finished half my volume...I returned on last
Tuesday from a week's hydropathy.

Take warning by me, and do not work too hard. For God's sake, think of
this.

It is dreadfully uphill work with me getting my confounded volume
finished.

I wish you well through all your labours. Adios.

LETTER 79. TO ASA GRAY. Down, November 29th {1859}.

This shall be such an extraordinary note as you have never received from
me, for it shall not contain one single question or request. I thank you
for your impression on my views. Every criticism from a good man is of
value to me. What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work
will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of
being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from
too few facts. I had not thought of your objection of my using the term
"natural selection" as an agent. I use it much as a geologist does the
word denudation—for an agent, expressing the result of several
combined actions. I will take care to explain, not merely by inference,
what I mean by the term; for I must use it, otherwise I should incessantly
have to expand it into some such (here miserably expressed) formula as the
following: "The tendency to the preservation (owing to the severe struggle
for life to which all organic beings at some time or generation are
exposed) of any, the slightest, variation in any part, which is of the
slightest use or favourable to the life of the individual which has thus
varied; together with the tendency to its inheritance." Any variation,
which was of no use whatever to the individual, would not be preserved by
this process of "natural selection." But I will not weary you by going on,
as I do not suppose I could make my meaning clearer without large
expansion. I will only add one other sentence: several varieties of sheep
have been turned out together on the Cumberland mountains, and one
particular breed is found to succeed so much better than all the others
that it fairly starves the others to death. I should here say that natural
selection picks out this breed, and would tend to improve it, or
aboriginally to have formed it...

You speak of species not having any material base to rest on, but is this
any greater hardship than deciding what deserves to be called a variety,
and be designated by a Greek letter? When I was at systematic work, I know
I longed to have no other difficulty (great enough) than deciding whether
the form was distinct enough to deserve a name, and not to be haunted with
undefined and unanswerable questions whether it was a true species. What a
jump it is from a well-marked variety, produced by natural cause, to a
species produced by the separate act of the hand of God! But I am running
on foolishly. By the way, I met the other day Phillips, the
palaeontologist, and he asked me, "How do you define a species?" I
answered, "I cannot." Whereupon he said, "at last I have found out the
only true definition,—any form which has ever had a specific
name!"...

LETTER 80. TO C. LYELL. Ilkley, October 31st {1859}.

That you may not misunderstand how far I go with Pallas and his many
disciples I should like to add that, though I believe that our domestic
dogs have descended from several wild forms, and though I must think that
the sterility, which they would probably have evinced, if crossed before
being domesticated, has been eliminated, yet I go but a very little way
with Pallas & Co. in their belief in the importance of the crossing
and blending of the aboriginal stocks. (80/1. "With our domesticated
animals, the various races when crossed together are quite fertile; yet in
many cases they are descended from two or more wild species. From this
fact we must conclude either that the aboriginal parent-species at first
produced perfectly fertile hybrids, or that the hybrids subsequently
reared under domestication became quite fertile. This latter alternative,
which was first propounded by Pallas, seems by far the most probable, and
can, indeed, hardly be doubted" ("Origin of Species," Edition VI., page
240).) You will see this briefly put in the first chapter. Generally, with
respect to crossing, the effects may be diametrically opposite. If you
cross two very distinct races, you may make (not that I believe such has
often been made) a third and new intermediate race; but if you cross two
exceedingly close races, or two slightly different individuals of the same
race, then in fact you annul and obliterate the difference. In this latter
way I believe crossing is all-important, and now for twenty years I have
been working at flowers and insects under this point of view. I do not
like Hooker's terms, centripetal and centrifugal (80/2. Hooker's
"Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania," pages viii. and ix.): they
remind me of Forbes' bad term of Polarity. (80/3. Forbes, "On the
Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organised Beings in
Time."—"R. Institution Proc." I., 1851-54.)

I daresay selection by man would generally work quicker than Natural
Selection; but the important distinction between them is, that man can
scarcely select except external and visible characters, and secondly, he
selects for his own good; whereas under nature, characters of all kinds
are selected exclusively for each creature's own good, and are well
exercised; but you will find all this in Chapter IV.

Although the hound, greyhound, and bull-dog may possibly have descended
from three distinct stocks, I am convinced that their present great amount
of difference is mainly due to the same causes which have made the breeds
of pigeons so different from each other, though these breeds of pigeons
have all descended from one wild stock; so that the Pallasian doctrine I
look at as but of quite secondary importance.

In my bigger book I have explained my meaning fully; whether I have in the
Abstract I cannot remember.

LETTER 81. TO C. LYELL. {December 5th, 1859.}

I forget whether you take in the "Times;" for the chance of your not doing
so, I send the enclosed rich letter. (81/1. See the "Times," December 1st
and December 5th, 1859: two letters signed "Senex," dealing with "Works of
Art in the Drift.") It is, I am sure, by Fitz-Roy...It is a pity he did
not add his theory of the extinction of Mastodon, etc., from the door of
the Ark being made too small. (81/2. A postscript to this letter, here
omitted, is published in the "Life and Letters," II., page 240.)

Pray let me add a word of congratulation on the completion of your
wonderful volume, to those which I am sure you will have received from
every side. I have laid it down in the full enjoyment of a feeling that
one rarely experiences after boyish days, of having been initiated into an
entirely new province of knowledge, which, nevertheless, connects itself
with other things in a thousand ways. I hear you are engaged on a second
edition. There is a trivial error in page 68, about rhinoceroses (82/1.
Down (loc. cit.) says that neither the elephant nor the rhinoceros is
destroyed by beasts of prey. Mr. Galton wrote that the wild dogs hunt the
young rhinoceros and "exhaust them to death; they pursue them all day
long, tearing at their ears, the only part their teeth can fasten on." The
reference to the rhinoceros is omitted in later editions of the
"Origin."), which I thought I might as well point out, and have taken
advantage of the same opportunity to scrawl down half a dozen other notes,
which may, or may not, be worthless to you.

(83/1. The three next letters refer to Huxley's lecture on Evolution,
given at the Royal Institution on February 10th, 1860, of which the
peroration is given in "Life and Letters," II., page 282, together with
some letters on the subject.)

LETTER 83. TO T.H. HUXLEY. November 25th {1859}.

I rejoice beyond measure at the lecture. I shall be at home in a
fortnight, when I could send you splendid folio coloured drawings of
pigeons. Would this be in time? If not, I think I could write to my
servants and have them sent to you. If I do NOT hear I shall understand
that about fifteen or sixteen days will be in time.

I have had a kind yet slashing letter against me from poor dear old
Sedgwick, "who has laughed till his sides ached at my book."

Phillips is cautious, but decidedly, I fear, hostile. Hurrah for the
Lecture—it is grand!

LETTER 84. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 13th {1859}.

I have got fine large drawings (84/1. For Mr. Huxley's R.I. lecture.) of
the Pouter, Carrier, and Tumbler; I have only drawings in books of
Fantails, Barbs, and Scanderoon Runts. If you had them, you would have a
grand display of extremes of diversity. Will they pay at the Royal
Institution for copying on a large size drawings of these birds? I could
lend skulls of a Carrier and a Tumbler (to show the great difference) for
the same purpose, but it would not probably be worth while.

I have been looking at my MS. What you want I believe is about hybridism
and breeding. The chapter on hybridism is in a pretty good state—about
150 folio pages with notes and references on the back. My first chapter on
breeding is in too bad and imperfect a state to send; but my discussion on
pigeons (in about 100 folio pages) is in a pretty good state. I am
perfectly convinced that you would never have patience to read such
volumes of MS. I speak now in the palace of truth, and pray do you: if you
think you would read them I will send them willingly up by my servant, or
bring them myself next week. But I have no copy, and I never could
possibly replace them; and without you really thought that you would use
them, I had rather not risk them. But I repeat I will willingly bring
them, if you think you would have the vast patience to use them. Please
let me hear on this subject, and whether I shall send the book with small
drawings of three other breeds or skulls. I have heard a rumour that Busk
is on our side in regard to species. Is this so? It would be very good.

LETTER 85. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 16th {1859}.

I thank you for your very pleasant and amusing note and invitation to
dinner, which I am sorry to say I cannot accept. I shall come up (stomach
willing) on Thursday for Phil. Club dinner, and return on Saturday, and I
am engaged to my brother for Friday. But I should very much like to call
at the Museum on Friday or Saturday morning and see you. Would you let me
have one line either here or at 57, Queen Anne Street, to say at what hour
you generally come to the Museum, and whether you will be probably there
on Friday or Saturday? Even if you are at the Club, it will be a mere
chance if we sit near each other.

I will bring up the articles on Thursday afternoon, and leave them under
charge of the porter at the Museum. They will consist of large drawings of
a Pouter, a Carrier, and rather smaller drawings of some sub-varieties
(which breed nearly true) of short-faced Tumblers. Also a small drawing of
Scanderoon, a kind of Runt, and a very remarkable breed. Also a book with
very moderately good drawings of Fantail and Barb, but I very much doubt
whether worth the trouble of enlarging.

Also a box (for Heaven's sake, take care!) with a skull of Carrier and
short-faced Tumbler; also lower jaws (largest size) of Runt, middle size
of Rock-pigeon, and the broad one of Barb. The form of ramus of jaw
differs curiously in these jaws.

Also MS. of hybridism and pigeons, which will just weary you to death. I
will call myself for or send a servant for the MS. and bones whenever you
have done with them; but do not hurry.

You have hit on the exact plan, which, on the advice of Lyell, Murray,
etc., I mean to follow—viz., bring out separate volumes in detail—and
I shall begin with domestic productions; but I am determined to try and
{work} very slowly, so that, if possible, I may keep in a somewhat better
state of health. I had not thought of illustrations; that is capital
advice. Farewell, my good and admirable agent for the promulgation of
damnable heresies!

LETTER 86. TO L. HORNER. Down, December 23rd {1859}.

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your extremely kind letter. I
am very much pleased that you approve of my book, and that you are going
to pay me the extraordinary compliment of reading it twice. I fear that it
is tough reading, but it is beyond my powers to make the subject clearer.
Lyell would have done it admirably.

You must enjoy being a gentlemen at your ease, and I hear that you have
returned with ardour to work at the Geological Society. We hope in the
course of the winter to persuade Mrs. Horner and yourself and daughters to
pay us a visit. Ilkley did me extraordinary good during the latter part of
my stay and during my first week at home; but I have gone back latterly to
my bad ways, and fear I shall never be decently well and strong.

P.S.—When any of your party write to Mildenhall I should be much
obliged if you would say to Bunbury that I hope he will not forget,
whenever he reads my book, his promise to let me know what he thinks about
it; for his knowledge is so great and accurate that every one must value
his opinions highly. I shall be quite contented if his belief in the
immutability of species is at all staggered.

LETTER 87. TO C. LYELL.

(87/1. In the "Origin of Species" a section of Chapter X. is devoted to
"The succession of the same types within the same areas, during the late
Tertiary period" (Edition I., page 339). Mr. Darwin wrote as follows: "Mr.
Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian
caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent."
After citing other instances illustrating the same agreement between
fossil and recent types, Mr. Darwin continues: "I was so much impressed
with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this 'law
of the succession of types,' on 'this wonderful relationship in the same
continent between the dead and the living.' Professor Owen has
subsequently extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old
World.")

Down, {December} 27th {1859}.

Owen wrote to me to ask for the reference to Clift. As my own notes for
the late chapters are all in chaos, I bethought me who was the most
trustworthy man of all others to look for references, and I answered
myself, "Of course Lyell." In the {"Principles of Geology"}, edition of
1833, Volume III., chapter xi., page 144, you will find the reference to
Clift in the "Edinburgh New Phil Journal," No. XX., page 394. (87/2. The
correct reference to Clift's "Report" on fossil bones from New Holland is
"Edinburgh New Phil. Journal," 1831, page 394.) You will also find that
you were greatly struck with the fact itself (87/3. This refers to the
discovery of recent and fossil species of animals in an Australian
cave-breccia. Mr. Clift is quoted as having identified one of the bones,
which was much larger than the rest, as that of a hippopotamus.), which I
had quite forgotten. I copied the passage, and sent it to Owen. Why I gave
in some detail references to my own work is that Owen (not the first
occasion with respect to myself and others) quietly ignores my having ever
generalised on the subject, and makes a great fuss on more than one
occasion at having discovered the law of succession. In fact, this law,
with the Galapagos distribution, first turned my mind on the origin of
species. My own references are {to the "Naturalist's Voyage"}:

Long before Owen published I had in MS. worked out the succession of types
in the Old World (as I remember telling Sedgwick, who of course
disbelieved it).

Since receiving your last letter on Hooker, I have read his introduction
as far as page xxiv (87/4. "On the Flora of Australia, etc.; being an
Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania": London, 1859.), where the
Australian flora begins, and this latter part I liked most in the proofs.
It is a magnificent essay. I doubt slightly about some assertions, or
rather should have liked more facts—as, for instance, in regard to
species varying most on the confines of their range. Naturally I doubt a
little his remarks about divergence (87/5. "Variation is effected by
graduated changes; and the tendency of varieties, both in nature and under
cultivation, when further varying, is rather to depart more and more
widely from the original type than to revert to it." On the margin Darwin
wrote: "Without selection doubtful" (loc. cit., page viii).), and about
domestic races being produced under nature without selection. It would
take much to persuade me that a Pouter Pigeon, or a Carrier, etc., could
have been produced by the mere laws of variation without long continued
selection, though each little enlargement of crop and beak are due to
variation. I demur greatly to his comparison of the products of sinking
and rising islands (87/6. "I venture to anticipate that a study of the
vegetation of the islands with reference to the peculiarities of the
generic types on the one hand, and of the geological conditions (whether
as rising or sinking) on the other, may, in the present state of our
knowledge, advance other subjects of distribution and variation
considerably" (loc. cit., page xv).); in the Indian Ocean he compares
exclusively many rising volcanic and sinking coral islands. The latter
have a most peculiar soil, and are excessively small in area, and are
tenanted by very few species; moreover, such low coral islands have
probably been often, during their subsidence, utterly submerged, and
restocked by plants from other islands. In the Pacific Ocean the floras of
all the best cases are unknown. The comparison ought to have been
exclusively between rising and fringed volcanic islands, and sinking and
encircled volcanic islands. I have read Naudin (87/7. Naudin, "Revue
Horticole," 1852?.), and Hooker agrees that he does not even touch on my
views.

LETTER 88. J.D. HOOKER TO CHARLES DARWIN. {1859 or 1860.}

I have had another talk with Bentham, who is greatly agitated by your
book: evidently the stern, keen intellect is aroused, and he finds that it
is too late to halt between two opinions. How it will go we shall see. I
am intensely interested in what we shall come to, and never broach the
subject to him. I finished the geological evidence chapters yesterday;
they are very fine and very striking, but I cannot see they are such
forcible objections as you still hold them to be. I would say that you
still in your secret soul underrate the imperfection of the Geological
Record, though no language can be stronger or arguments fairer and sounder
against it. Of course I am influenced by Botany, and the conviction that
we have not in a fossilised condition a fraction of the plants that have
existed, and that not a fraction of those we have are recognisable
specifically. I never saw so clearly put the fact that it is not
intermediates between existing species we want, but between these and the
unknown tertium quid.

You certainly make a hobby of Natural Selection, and probably ride it too
hard; that is a necessity of your case. If the improvement of the
creation-by-variation doctrine is conceivable, it will be by unburthening
your theory of Natural Selection, which at first sight seems overstrained—i.e.,
to account for too much. I think, too, that some of your difficulties
which you override by Natural Selection may give way before other
explanations. But, oh Lord! how little we do know and have known to be so
advanced in knowledge by one theory. If we thought ourselves knowing dogs
before you revealed Natural Selection, what d—d ignorant ones we
must surely be now we do know that law.

I hear you may be at the Club on Thursday. I hope so. Huxley will not be
there, so do not come on that ground.

LETTER 89. TO T.H. HUXLEY. January 1st {1860}.

I write one line merely to thank you for your pleasant note, and to say
that I will keep your secret. I will shake my head as mysteriously as Lord
Burleigh. Several persons have asked me who wrote that "most remarkable
article" in the "Times." (89/1. The "Times," December 26th, 1859, page 8.
The opening paragraphs were by one of the staff of the "Times." See "Life
and Letters," II., page 255, for Mr. Huxley's interesting account of his
share in the matter.) As a cat may look at a king, so I have said that I
strongly suspected you. X was so sharp that the first sentence revealed
the authorship. The Z's (God save the mark) thought it was Owen's! You may
rely on it that it has made a deep impression, and I am heartily glad that
the subject and I owe you this further obligation. But for God's sake,
take care of your health; remember that the brain takes years to rest,
whilst the muscles take only hours. There is poor Dana, to whom I used to
preach by letter, writes to me that my prophecies are come true: he is in
Florence quite done up, can read nothing and write nothing, and cannot
talk for half an hour. I noticed the "naughty sentence" (89/2. Mr. Huxley,
after speaking of the rudimental teeth of the whale, of rudimental jaws in
insects which never bite, and rudimental eyes in blind animals, goes on:
"And we would remind those who, ignorant of the facts, must be moved by
authority, that no one has asserted the incompetence of the doctrine of
final causes, in its application to physiology and anatomy, more strongly
than our own eminent anatomist, Professor Owen, who, speaking of such
cases, says ("On the Nature of Limbs," pages 39, 40), 'I think it will be
obvious that the principle of final adaptations fails to satisfy all the
conditions of the problem.'"—"The Times," December 26th, 1859.)
about Owen, though my wife saw its bearing first. Farewell you best and
worst of men!

That sentence about the bird and the fish dinners charmed us. Lyell wrote
to me—style like yours.

Have you seen the slashing article of December 26th in the "Daily News,"
against my stealing from my "master," the author of the "Vestiges?"

LETTER 90. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. {Undated}

How I should like to know whether Milne Edwards has read the copy which I
sent him, and whether he thinks I have made a pretty good case on our side
of the question. There is no naturalist in the world for whose opinion I
have so profound a respect. Of course I am not so silly as to expect to
change his opinion.

LETTER 91. TO C. LYELL.

(91/1. The date of this letter is doubtful; but as it evidently refers to
the 2nd edition of the "Origin," which appeared on January 7th, 1860, we
believe that December 9th, 1859, is right. The letter of Sedgwick's is
doubtless that given in the "Life and Letters," II., page 247; it is there
dated December 24th, 1859, but from other evidence it was probably written
on November 24th)

{December?} 9th {1859}.

I send Sedgwick's letter; it is terribly muddled, and really the first
page seems almost childish.

I am sadly over-worked, so will not write to you. I have worked in a
number of your invaluable corrections—indeed, all as far as time
permits. I infer from a letter from Huxley that Ramsay (91/2. See a letter
to Huxley, November 27th, 1859, "Life and Letters," II., page 282.) is a
convert, and I am extremely glad to get pure geologists, as they will be
very few. Many thanks for your very pleasant note. What pleasure you have
given me. I believe I should have been miserable had it not been for you
and a few others, for I hear threatening of attacks which I daresay will
be severe enough. But I am sure that I can now bear them.

LETTER 92. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(92/1. The point here discussed is one to which Mr. Huxley attached great,
in our opinion too great, importance.)

Down, January 11th {1860?}.

I fully agree that the difficulty is great, and might be made much of by a
mere advocate. Will you oblige me by reading again slowly from pages 267
to 272. (92/2. The reference is to the "Origin," Edition I.: the section
on "The Fertility of Varieties when crossed, and of their Mongrel
Offspring" occupies pages 267-72.) I may add to what is there said, that
it seems to me quite hopeless to attempt to explain why varieties are not
sterile, until we know the precise cause of sterility in species.

Reflect for a moment on how small and on what very peculiar causes the
unequal reciprocity of fertility in the same two species must depend.
Reflect on the curious case of species more fertile with foreign pollen
than their own. Reflect on many cases which could be given, and shall be
given in my larger book (independently of hybridity) of very slight
changes of conditions causing one species to be quite sterile and not
affecting a closely allied species. How profoundly ignorant we are on the
intimate relation between conditions of life and impaired fertility in
pure species!

The only point which I might add to my short discussion on this subject,
is that I think it probable that the want of adaptation to uniform
conditions of life in our domestic varieties has played an important part
in preventing their acquiring sterility when crossed. For the want of
uniformity, and changes in the conditions of life, seem the only cause of
the elimination of sterility (when crossed) under domestication. (92/3.
The meaning which we attach to this obscure sentence is as follows:
Species in a state of nature are closely adapted to definite conditions of
life, so that the sexual constitution of species A is attuned, as it were,
to a condition different from that to which B is attuned, and this leads
to sterility. But domestic varieties are not strictly adapted by Natural
Selection to definite conditions, and thus have less specialised sexual
constitutions.) This elimination, though admitted by many authors, rests
on very slight evidence, yet I think is very probably true, as may be
inferred from the case of dogs. Under nature it seems improbable that the
differences in the reproductive constitution, on which the sterility of
any two species when crossed depends, can be acquired directly by Natural
Selection; for it is of no advantage to the species. Such differences in
reproductive constitution must stand in correlation with some other
differences; but how impossible to conjecture what these are! Reflect on
the case of the variations of Verbascum, which differ in no other respect
whatever besides the fluctuating element of the colour of the flower, and
yet it is impossible to resist Gartner's evidence, that this difference in
the colour does affect the mutual fertility of the varieties.

The whole case seems to me far too mysterious to rest (92/4. The word
"rest" seems to be used in place of "to serve as a foundation for.") a
valid attack on the theory of modification of species, though, as you say,
it offers excellent ground for a mere advocate.

I am surprised, considering how ignorant we are on very many points,
{that} more weak parts in my book have not as yet been pointed out to me.
No doubt many will be. H.C. Watson founds his objection in MS. on there
being no limit to infinite diversification of species: I have answered
this, I think, satisfactorily, and have sent attack and answer to Lyell
and Hooker. If this seems to you a good objection, I would send papers to
you. Andrew Murray "disposes of" the whole theory by an ingenious
difficulty from the distribution of blind cave insects (92/5. See "Life
and Letters, Volume II., page 265. The reference here is to Murray's
address before the Botanical Society, Edinburgh. Mr. Darwin seems to have
read Murray's views only in a separate copy reprinted from the "Proc. R.
Soc. Edin." There is some confusion about the date of the paper; the
separate copy is dated January 16th, while in the volume of the "Proc. R.
Soc." it is February 20th. In the "Life and Letters," II., page 261 it is
erroneously stated that these are two different papers.); but it can, I
think, be fairly answered.

LETTER 93. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, {February} 2nd {1860}.

I have had this morning a letter from old Bronn (93/1. See "Life and
Letters, II., page 277.) (who, to my astonishment, seems slightly
staggered by Natural Selection), and he says a publisher in Stuttgart is
willing to publish a translation, and that he, Bronn, will to a certain
extent superintend. Have you written to Kolliker? if not, perhaps I had
better close with this proposal—what do you think? If you have
written, I must wait, and in this case will you kindly let me hear as soon
as you hear from Kolliker?

My poor dear friend, you will curse the day when you took up the "general
agency" line; but really after this I will not give you any more trouble.

Do not forget the three tickets for us for your lecture, and the ticket
for Baily, the poulterer.

Old Bronn has published in the "Year-book for Mineralogy" a notice of the
"Origin" (93/2. "Neues Jahrb. fur Min." 1860, page 112.); and says he has
himself published elsewhere a foreboding of the theory!

LETTER 94. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 14th {1860}.

I succeeded in persuading myself for twenty-four hours that Huxley's
lecture was a success. (94/1. At the Royal Institution. See "Life and
Letters," II., page 282.) Parts were eloquent and good, and all very bold;
and I heard strangers say, "What a good lecture!" I told Huxley so; but I
demurred much to the time wasted in introductory remarks, especially to
his making it appear that sterility was a clear and manifest distinction
of species, and to his not having even alluded to the more important parts
of the subject. He said that he had much more written out, but time
failed. After conversation with others and more reflection, I must confess
that as an exposition of the doctrine the lecture seems to me an entire
failure. I thank God I did not think so when I saw Huxley; for he spoke so
kindly and magnificently of me, that I could hardly have endured to say
what I now think. He gave no just idea of Natural Selection. I have always
looked at the doctrine of Natural Selection as an hypothesis, which, if it
explained several large classes of facts, would deserve to be ranked as a
theory deserving acceptance; and this, of course, is my own opinion. But,
as Huxley has never alluded to my explanation of classification,
morphology, embryology, etc., I thought he was thoroughly dissatisfied
with all this part of my book. But to my joy I find it is not so, and that
he agrees with my manner of looking at the subject; only that he rates
higher than I do the necessity of Natural Selection being shown to be a
vera causa always in action. He tells me he is writing a long review in
the "Westminster." It was really provoking how he wasted time over the
idea of a species as exemplified in the horse, and over Sir J. Hall's old
experiment on marble. Murchison was very civil to me over my book after
the lecture, in which he was disappointed. I have quite made up my mind to
a savage onslaught; but with Lyell, you, and Huxley, I feel confident we
are right, and in the long run shall prevail. I do not think Asa Gray has
quite done you justice in the beginning of the review of me. (94/2.
"Review of Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species by means of Natural
Selection," by "A.G." ("Amer. Jour. Sci." Volume XXIX., page 153, 1860).
In a letter to Asa Gray on February 18th, 1860, Darwin writes: "Your
review seems to me admirable; by far the best which I have read." ("Life
and Letters," II., 1887, page 286.) The review seemed to me very good, but
I read it very hastily.

LETTER 95. TO C. LYELL. Down, {February} 18th {1860}.

I send by this post Asa Gray, which seems to me very good, with the stamp
of originality on it. Also Bronn's "Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie." (95/1. See
Letter 93.)

The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to make it out. I never
tried such confoundedly hard german; nor does it seem worth the labour. He
sticks to Priestley's Green Matter, and seems to think that till it can be
shown how life arises it is no good showing how the forms of life arise.
This seems to me about as logical (comparing very great things with
little) as to say it was no use in Newton showing the laws of attraction
of gravity and the consequent movement of the planets, because he could
not show what the attraction of gravity is.

The expression "Wahl der Lebens-Weise" (95/2. "Die fruchtbarste und
allgemeinste Ursache der Varietaten-Bildung ist jedoch die Wahl der
Lebens-Weise" (loc. cit., page 112).) makes me doubt whether B.
understands what I mean by Natural Selection, as I have told him. He says
(if I understand him) that you ought to be on the same side with me.

P.S. Sunday afternoon.—I have kept back this to thank you for your
letter, with much news, received this morning. My conscience is uneasy at
the time you waste in amusing and interesting me. I was very curious to
hear about Phillips. The review in the "Annals" is, as I was convinced, by
Wollaston, for I have had a very cordial letter from him this morning.
(95/3. A bibliographical Notice "On the Origin of Species by means of
Natural Selection; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life." ("Annals and Mag." Volume V., pages 132-43, 1860). The notice
is not signed. Referring to the article, in a letter to Lyell, February
15th, 1860, Darwin writes: "I am perfectly convinced...that the review in
the "Annals" is by Wollaston; no one else in the world would have used so
many parentheses" ("Life and Letters," II., page 284).)

I send by this post an attack in the "Gardeners' Chronicle" by Harvey (a
first-rate botanist, as you probably know). (95/4. In the "Gardeners'
Chronicle" of February 18th, 1860, W.H. Harvey described a case of
monstrosity in Begonia frigida, which he argued was hostile to the theory
of Natural Selection. The passage about Harvey's attack was published in
the "Life and Letters," II., page 275.) It seems to me rather strange; he
assumes the permanence of monsters, whereas monsters are generally
sterile, and not often inheritable. But grant his case, it comes {to
this}, that I have been too cautious in not admitting great and sudden
variations. Here again comes in the mischief of my abstract. In fuller MS.
I have discussed the parallel case of a normal fish like a monstrous
gold-fish.

I end my discussion by doubting, because all cases of monstrosities which
resemble normal structures which I could find were not in allied groups.
Trees like Aspicarpa (95/5. Aspicarpa, an American genus of Malpighiaceae,
is quoted in the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 367) as an illustration of
Linnaeus' aphorism that the characters do not give the genus, but the
genus gives the characters. During several years' cultivation in France
Aspicarpa produced only degraded flowers, which differed in many of the
most important points of structure from the proper type of the order; but
it was recognised by M. Richard that the genus should be retained among
the Malpighiaceae. "This case," adds Darwin, "well illustrates the spirit
of our classification."), with flowers of two kinds (in the "Origin"), led
me also to speculate on the same subject; but I could find only one
doubtfully analogous case of species having flowers like the degraded or
monstrous flowers. Harvey does not see that if only a few (as he supposes)
of the seedlings inherited being monstrosities, Natural Selection would be
necessary to select and preserve them. You had better return the
"Gardeners' Chronicle," etc., to my brother's. The case of Begonia (95/6.
Harvey's criticism was answered by Sir J.D. Hooker in the following number
of the "Gardeners' Chronicle" (February 25th, 1860, page 170).) in itself
is very curious; I am tempted to answer the notice, but I will refrain,
for there would be no end to answers.

With respect to your objection of a multitude of still living simple
forms, I have not discussed it anywhere in the "Origin," though I have
often thought it over. What you say about progress being only occasional
and retrogression not uncommon, I agree to; only that in the animal
kingdom I greatly doubt about retrogression being common. I have always
put it to myself—What advantage can we see in an infusory animal, or
an intestinal worm, or coral polypus, or earthworm being highly developed?
If no advantage, they would not become highly developed: not but what all
these animals have very complex structures (except infusoria), and they
may well be higher than the animals which occupied similar places in the
economy of nature before the Silurian epoch. There is a blind snake with
the appearances and, in some respects, habits of earthworms; but this
blind snake does not tend, as far as we can see, to replace and drive out
worms. I think I must in a future edition discuss a few more such points,
and will introduce this and H.C. Watson's objection about the infinite
number of species and the general rise in organisation. But there is a
directly opposite objection to yours which is very difficult to answer—viz.
how at the first start of life, when there were only the simplest
organisms, how did any complication of organisation profit them? I can
only answer that we have not facts enough to guide any speculation on the
subject.

With respect to Lepidosiren, Ganoid fishes, perhaps Ornithorhynchus, I
suspect, as stated in the "Origin," (95/7. "Origin of Species" (Edition
VI.), page 83.), that they have been preserved, from inhabiting
fresh-water and isolated parts of the world, in which there has been less
competition and less rapid progress in Natural Selection, owing to the
fewness of individuals which can inhabit small areas; and where there are
few individuals variation at most must be slower. There are several
allusions to this notion in the "Origin," as under Amblyopsis, the blind
cave-fish (95/8. "Origin," page 112.), and under Heer (95/9. "Origin,"
page 83.) about Madeira plants resembling the fossil and extinct plants of
Europe.

LETTER 96. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, March 5th {1860?}.

I am much obliged for your long and interesting letter. You have indeed
good right to speak confidently about the habits of wild birds and
animals; for I should think no one beside yourself has ever sported in
Spitzbergen and Southern Africa. It is very curious and interesting that
you should have arrived at the conclusion that so-called "Natural
Selection" had been efficient in giving their peculiar colours to our
grouse. I shall probably use your authority on the similar habits of our
grouse and the Norwegian species.

I am particularly obliged for your very curious fact of the effect
produced by the introduction of the lowland grouse on the wildness of the
grouse in your neighbourhood. It is a very striking instance of what
crossing will do in affecting the character of a breed. Have you ever seen
it stated in any sporting work that game has become wilder in this
country? I wish I could get any sort of proof of the fact, for your
explanation seems to me equally ingenious and probable. I have myself
witnessed in South America a nearly parallel {case} with that which you
mention in regard to the reindeer in Spitzbergen, with the Cervus
campestris of La Plata. It feared neither man nor the sound of shot of a
rifle, but was terrified at the sight of a man on horseback; every one in
that country always riding. As you are so great a sportsman, perhaps you
will kindly look to one very trifling point for me, as my neighbours here
think it too absurd to notice—namely, whether the feet of birds are
dirty, whether a few grains of dirt do not adhere occasionally to their
feet. I especially want to know how this is in the case of birds like
herons and waders, which stalk in the mud. You will guess that this
relates to dispersal of seeds, which is one of my greatest difficulties.
My health is very indifferent, and I am seldom able to attend the
scientific meetings, but I sincerely hope that I may some time have the
pleasure of meeting you.

Pray accept my cordial thanks for your very kind letter.

LETTER 97. TO G.H.K. THWAITES. Down, March 21st {1860}.

I thank you very sincerely for your letter, and am much pleased that you
go a little way with me. You will think it presumptuous, but I am well
convinced from my own mental experience that if you keep the subject at
all before your mind you will ultimately go further. The present volume is
a mere abstract, and there are great omissions. One main one, which I have
rectified in the foreign editions, is an explanation (which has satisfied
Lyell, who made the same objection with you) why many forms do not
progress or advance (and I quite agree about some retrograding). I have
also a MS. discussion on beauty; but do you really suppose that for
instance Diatomaceae were created beautiful that man, after millions of
generations, should admire them through the microscope? (97/1. Thwaites
(1811-82) published several papers on the Diatomaceae ("On Conjugation in
the Diatomaceae," "Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume XX., 1847, pages 9-11,
343-4; "Further Observations on the Diatomaceae," loc. cit., 1848, page
161). See "Life and Letters" II., page 292.) I should attribute most of
such structures to quite unknown laws of growth; and mere repetition of
parts is to our eyes one main element of beauty. When any structure is of
use (and I can show what curiously minute particulars are often of highest
use), I can see with my prejudiced eyes no limit to the perfection of the
coadaptations which could be effected by Natural Selection. I rather doubt
whether you see how far, as it seems to me, the argument for homology and
embryology may be carried. I do not look at this as mere analogy. I would
as soon believe that fossil shells were mere mockeries of real shells as
that the same bones in the foot of a dog and wing of a bat, or the similar
embryo of mammal and bird, had not a direct signification, and that the
signification can be unity of descent or nothing. But I venture to repeat
how much pleased I am that you go some little way with me. I find a number
of naturalists do the same, and as their halting-places are various, and I
must think arbitrary, I believe they will all go further. As for changing
at once one's opinion, I would not value the opinion of a man who could do
so; it must be a slow process. (97/2. Darwin wrote to Woodward in regard
to the "Origin": "It may be a vain and silly thing to say, but I believe
my book must be read twice carefully to be fully understood. You will
perhaps think it by no means worth the labour.") Thank you for telling me
about the Lantana (97/3. An exotic species of Lantana (Verbenaceae) grows
vigorously in Ceylon, and is described as frequently making its appearance
after the firing of the low-country forests (see H.H.W. Pearson, "The
Botany of the Ceylon Patanas," "Journal Linn. Soc." Volume XXXIV., page
317, 1899). No doubt Thwaites' letter to Darwin referred to the spreading
of the introduced Lantana, comparable to that of the cardoon in La Plata
and of other plants mentioned by Darwin in the "Origin of Species"
(Edition VI., page 51).), and I should at any time be most grateful for
any information which you think would be of use to me. I hope that you
will publish a list of all naturalised plants in Ceylon, as far as known,
carefully distinguishing those confined to cultivated soils alone. I feel
sure that this most important subject has been greatly undervalued.

LETTER 98. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(98/1. The reference here is to the review on the "Origin of Species"
generally believed to be by the late Sir R. Owen, and published in the
April number of the "Edinburgh Review," 1860. Owen's biographer is silent
on the subject, and prints, without comment, the following passage in an
undated letter from Sedgwick to Owen: "Do you know who was the author of
the article in the "Edinburgh" on the subject of Darwin's theory? On the
whole, I think it very good. I once suspected that you must have had a
hand in it, and I then abandoned that thought. I have not read it with any
care" (Owen's "Life," Volume II., page 96).

April 9th {1860}.

I never saw such an amount of misrepresentation. At page 530 (98/2.
"Lasting and fruitful conclusions have, indeed, hitherto been based only
on the possession of knowledge; now we are called upon to accept an
hypothesis on the plea of want of knowledge. The geological record, it is
averred, is so imperfect!"—"Edinburgh Review," CXI., 1860, page
530.) he says we are called on to accept the hypothesis on the plea of
ignorance, whereas I think I could not have made it clearer that I admit
the imperfection of the Geological Record as a great difficulty.

The quotation (98/3. "We are appealed to, or at least 'the young and
rising naturalists with plastic minds,* {On the Nature of the Limbs, page
482} are adjured." It will be seen that the inverted comma after
"naturalists" is omitted; the asterisk referring, in a footnote (here
placed in square brackets), to page 482 of the "Origin," seems to have
been incorrectly assumed by Mr. Darwin to show the close of the quotation.—Ibid.,
page 512.) on page 512 of the "Review" about "young and rising naturalists
with plastic minds," attributed to "nature of limbs," is a false
quotation, as I do not use the words "plastic minds."

At page 501 (98/4. The passage ("Origin," Edition I., page 483) begins,
"But do they really believe...," and shows clearly that the author
considers such a belief all but impossible.) the quotation is garbled, for
I only ask whether naturalists believe about elemental atoms flashing,
etc., and he changes it into that I state that they do believe.

At page 500 (98/5. "All who have brought the transmutation speculation to
the test of observed facts and ascertained powers in organic life, and
have published the results, usually adverse to such speculations, are set
down by Mr. Darwin as 'curiously illustrating the blindness of
preconceived opinion.'" The passage in the "Origin," page 482, begins by
expressing surprise at the point of view of some naturalists: "They admit
that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were
special creations,...have been produced by variation, but they refuse to
extend the same view to other and very slightly different forms...They
admit variation as a vera causa in one case, they arbitrarily reject it in
another, without assigning any distinction in the two cases. The day will
come when this will be given as a curious illustration of the blindness of
preconceived opinion.") it is very false to say that I imply by "blindness
of preconceived opinion" the simple belief of creation. And so on in other
cases. But I beg pardon for troubling you. I am heartily sorry that in
your unselfish endeavours to spread what you believe to be truth, you
should have incurred so brutal an attack. (98/6. The "Edinburgh" Reviewer,
referring to Huxley's Royal Institution Lecture given February 10th, 1860,
"On Species and Races and their Origin," says (page 521), "We gazed with
amazement at the audacity of the dispenser of the hour's intellectual
amusement, who, availing himself of the technical ignorance of the
majority of his auditors, sought to blind them as to the frail foundations
of 'natural selection' by such illustrations as the subjoined": And then
follows a critique of the lecturer's comparison of the supposed descent of
the horse from the Palaeothere with that of various kinds of domestic
pigeons from the Rock-pigeon.) And now I will not think any more of this
false and malignant attack.

LETTER 99. TO MAXWELL MASTERS. Down, April 13th {1860}.

I thank you very sincerely for your two kind notes. The next time you
write to your father I beg you to give him from me my best thanks, but I
am sorry that he should have had the trouble of writing when ill. I have
been much interested by the facts given by him. If you think he would in
the least care to hear the result of an artificial cross of two sweet
peas, you can send the enclosed; if it will only trouble him, tear it up.
There seems to be so much parallelism in the kind of variation from my
experiment, which was certainly a cross, and what Mr. Masters has
observed, that I cannot help suspecting that his peas were crossed by
bees, which I have seen well dusted with the pollen of the sweet pea; but
then I wish this, and how hard it is to prevent one's wish biassing one's
judgment!

I was struck with your remark about the Compositae, etc. I do not see that
it bears much against me, and whether it does or not is of course of not
the slightest importance. Although I fully agree that no definition can be
drawn between monstrosities and slight variations (such as my theory
requires), yet I suspect there is some distinction. Some facts lead me to
think that monstrosities supervene generally at an early age; and after
attending to the subject I have great doubts whether species in a state of
nature ever become modified by such sudden jumps as would result from the
Natural Selection of monstrosities. You cannot do me a greater service
than by pointing out errors. I sincerely hope that your work on
monstrosities (99/1. "Vegetable Teratology," London, 1869 (Ray Soc.).)
will soon appear, for I am sure it will be highly instructive.

Now for your notes, for which let me again thank you.

1. Your conclusion about parts developed (99/2. See "Origin of Species,"
Edition I., page 153, on the variability of parts "developed in an
extraordinary manner in any one species, compared with the other species
of the same genus." See "Life and Letters," II., pages 97, 98, also Letter
33.) not being extra variable agrees with Hooker's. You will see that I
have stated that the rule apparently does not hold with plants, though it
ought, if true, to hold good with them.

2. I cannot now remember in what work I saw the statement about Peloria
affecting the axis, but I know it was one which I thought might be
trusted. I consulted also Dr. Falconer, and I think that he agreed to the
truth of it; but I cannot now tell where to look for my notes. I had been
much struck with finding a Laburnum tree with the terminal flowers alone
in each raceme peloric, though not perfectly regular. The Pelargonium case
in the "Origin" seems to point in the same direction. (99/3. "Origin of
Species," Edition I., page 145.)

3. Thanks for the correction about furze: I found the seedlings just
sprouting, and was so much surprised and their appearance that I sent them
to Hooker; but I never plainly asked myself whether they were cotyledons
or first leaves. (99/4. The trifoliate leaves of furze seedlings are not
cotyledons, but early leaves: see Lubbock's "Seedlings," I., page 410.)

4. That is a curious fact about the seeds of the furze, the more curious
as I found with Leguminosae that immersion in plain cold water for a very
few days killed some kinds.

If at any time anything should occur to you illustrating or opposing my
notions, and you have leisure to inform me, I should be truly grateful,
for I can plainly see that you have wealth of knowledge.

With respect to advancement or retrogression in organisation in
monstrosities of the Compositae, etc., do you not find it very difficult
to define which is which?

Anyhow, most botanists seem to differ as widely as possible on this head.

LETTER 100. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 8th {1860}.

Very many thanks about the Elodea, which case interests me much. I wrote
to Mr. Marshall (100/1. W. Marshall was the author of "Anacharis
alsinastrum, a new water-weed": four letters to the "Cambridge Independent
Press," reprinted as a pamphlet, 1852.) at Ely, and in due time he says he
will send me whatever information he can procure.

Owen is indeed very spiteful. (100/2. Owen was believed to be the author
of the article in the "Edinburgh Review," April, 1860. See Letter 98.) He
misrepresents and alters what I say very unfairly. But I think his conduct
towards Hooker most ungenerous: viz., to allude to his essay (Australian
Flora), and not to notice the magnificent results on geographical
distribution. The Londoners say he is mad with envy because my book has
been talked about; what a strange man to be envious of a naturalist like
myself, immeasurably his inferior! From one conversation with him I really
suspect he goes at the bottom of his hidden soul as far as I do.

I wonder whether Sedgwick noticed in the "Edinburgh Review" about the
"Sacerdotal revilers,"—so the revilers are tearing each other to
pieces. I suppose Sedgwick will be very fierce against me at the
Philosophical Society. (100/3. The meeting of the "Cambridge Phil. Soc."
was held on May 7th, 1860, and fully reported in the "Cambridge
Chronicle," May 19th. Sedgwick is reported to have said that "Darwin's
theory is not inductive—is not based on a series of acknowledged
facts, leading to a general conclusion evolved, logically out of the
facts...The only facts he pretends to adduce, as true elements of proof,
are the varieties produced by domestication and the artifices of
crossbreeding." Sedgwick went on to speak of the vexatious multiplication
of supposed species, and adds, "In this respect Darwin's theory may help
to simplify our classifications, and thereby do good service to modern
science. But he has not undermined any grand truth in the constancy of
natural laws, and the continuity of true species.") Judging from his
notice in the "Spectator," (100/4. March 24th, 1860; see "Life and
Letters," II., page 297.) he will misrepresent me, but it will certainly
be unintentionally done. In a letter to me, and in the above notice, he
talks much about my departing from the spirit of inductive philosophy. I
wish, if you ever talk on the subject to him, you would ask him whether it
was not allowable (and a great step) to invent the undulatory theory of
light, i.e. hypothetical undulations, in a hypothetical substance, the
ether. And if this be so, why may I not invent the hypothesis of Natural
Selection (which from the analogy of domestic productions, and from what
we know of the struggle for existence and of the variability of organic
beings, is, in some very slight degree, in itself probable) and try
whether this hypothesis of Natural Selection does not explain (as I think
it does) a large number of facts in geographical distribution—geological
succession, classification, morphology, embryology, etc. I should really
much like to know why such an hypothesis as the undulation of the ether
may be invented, and why I may not invent (not that I did invent it, for I
was led to it by studying domestic varieties) any hypothesis, such as
Natural Selection.

Pray forgive me and my pen for running away with me, and scribbling on at
such length.

I can perfectly understand Sedgwick (100/5. See "Life and Letters," II.,
page 247; the letter is there dated December 24th, but must, we think,
have been written in November at latest.) or any one saying that Natural
Selection does not explain large classes of facts; but that is very
different from saying that I depart from right principles of scientific
investigation.

LETTER 101. TO J.S. HENSLOW. Down, May 14th {1860}.

I have been greatly interested by your letter to Hooker, and I must thank
you from my heart for so generously defending me, as far as you could,
against my powerful attackers. Nothing which persons say hurts me for
long, for I have an entire conviction that I have not been influenced by
bad feelings in the conclusions at which I have arrived. Nor have I
published my conclusions without long deliberation, and they were arrived
at after far more study than the public will ever know of, or believe in.
I am certain to have erred in many points, but I do not believe so much as
Sedgwick and Co. think.

Is there any Abstract or Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society published? (101/1. Henslow's remarks are not given in the
above-mentioned report in the "Cambridge Chronicle.") If so, and you could
get me a copy, I should like to have one.

Believe me, my dear Henslow, I feel grateful to you on this occasion, and
for the multitude of kindnesses you have done me from my earliest days at
Cambridge.

LETTER 102. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 22nd {1860}.

Hooker has sent me a letter of Thwaites (102/1. See Letter 97.), of
Ceylon, who makes exactly the same objections which you did at first about
the necessity of all forms advancing, and therefore the difficulty of
simple forms still existing. There was no worse omission than this in my
book, and I had the discussion all ready.

I am extremely glad to hear that you intend adding new arguments about the
imperfection of the Geological Record. I always feel this acutely, and am
surprised that such men as Ramsay and Jukes do not feel it more.

I quite agree on insufficient evidence about mummy wheat. (102/2. See
notes appended to a letter to Lyell, September 1843 (Botany).

When you can spare it, I should like (but out of mere curiosity) to see
Binney on Coal marine marshes.

I once made Hooker very savage by saying that I believed the Coal plants
grew in the sea, like mangroves. (102/3. See "Life and Letters," I., page
356.)

LETTER 103. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(103/1. This letter is of interest as containing a strong expression upon
the overwhelming importance of selection.)

Down {1860}.

Many thanks for Harvey's letter (103/2. W.H. Harvey had been corresponding
with Sir J.D. Hooker on the "Origin of Species."), which I will keep a
little longer and then return. I will write to him and try to make clear
from analogy of domestic productions the part which I believe selection
has played. I have been reworking my pigeons and other domestic animals,
and I am sure that any one is right in saying that selection is the
efficient cause, though, as you truly say, variation is the base of all.
Why I do not believe so much as you do in physical agencies is that I see
in almost every organism (though far more clearly in animals than in
plants) adaptation, and this except in rare instances, must, I should
think, be due to selection.

Do not forget the Pyrola when in flower. (103/3. In a letter to Hooker,
May 22nd, 1860, Darwin wrote: "Have you Pyrola at Kew? if so, for heaven's
sake observe the curvature of the pistil towards the gangway to the
nectary." The fact of the stigma in insect-visited flowers being so placed
that the visitor must touch it on its way to the nectar, was a point which
early attracted Darwin's attention and strongly impressed him.) My blessed
little Scaevola has come into flower, and I will try artificial
fertilisation on it.

I have looked over Harvey's letter, and have assumed (I hope rightly) that
he could not object to knowing that you had forwarded it to me.

LETTER 104. TO ASA GRAY. Down, June 8th {1860}.

I have to thank you for two notes, one through Hooker, and one with some
letters to be posted, which was done. I anticipated your request by making
a few remarks on Owen's review. (104/1. "The Edinburgh Review," April,
1860.) Hooker is so weary of reviews that I do not think you will get any
hints from him. I have lately had many more "kicks than halfpence." A
review in the last Dublin "Nat. Hist. Review" is the most unfair thing
which has appeared,—one mass of misrepresentation. It is evidently
by Haughton, the geologist, chemist and mathematician. It shows
immeasurable conceit and contempt of all who are not mathematicians. He
discusses bees' cells, and puts a series which I have never alluded to,
and wholly ignores the intermediate comb of Melipona, which alone led me
to my notions. The article is a curiosity of unfairness and arrogance;
but, as he sneers at Malthus, I am content, for it is clear he cannot
reason. He is a friend of Harvey, with whom I have had some
correspondence. Your article has clearly, as he admits, influenced him. He
admits to a certain extent Natural Selection, yet I am sure does not
understand me. It is strange that very few do, and I am become quite
convinced that I must be an extremely bad explainer. To recur for a moment
to Owen: he grossly misrepresents and is very unfair to Huxley. You say
that you think the article must be by a pupil of Owen; but no one fact
tells so strongly against Owen, considering his former position at the
College of Surgeons, as that he has never reared one pupil or follower. In
the number just out of "Fraser's Magazine" (104/2. See "Life and Letters,"
II., page 314.) there is an article or review on Lamarck and me by W.
Hopkins, the mathematician, who, like Haughton, despises the reasoning
power of all naturalists. Personally he is extremely kind towards me; but
he evidently in the following number means to blow me into atoms. He does
not in the least appreciate the difference in my views and Lamarck's, as
explaining adaptation, the principle of divergence, the increase of
dominant groups, and the almost necessary extinction of the less dominant
and smaller groups, etc.

LETTER 105. TO C. LYELL. Down, June 17th {1860}.

One word more upon the Deification (105/1. "If we confound 'Variation' or
'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes
or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, "The Geological
Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories on the Origin
of Species by Variation," page 469, London, 1863). See Letter 131.) of
Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it does not exclude still
more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole universe. I have said
that Natural Selection is to the structure of organised beings what the
human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human
architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one, in giving
credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer
to the laws by which man has appeared.

No astronomer, in showing how the movements of planets are due to gravity,
thinks it necessary to say that the law of gravity was designed that the
planets should pursue the courses which they pursue. I cannot believe that
there is a bit more interference by the Creator in the construction of
each species than in the course of the planets. It is only owing to Paley
and Co., I believe, that this more special interference is thought
necessary with living bodies. But we shall never agree, so do not trouble
yourself to answer.

I should think your remarks were very just about mathematicians not being
better enabled to judge of probabilities than other men of common-sense.

I have just got more returns about the gestation of hounds. The period
differs at least from sixty-one to seventy-four days, just as I expected.

I was thinking of sending the "Gardeners' Chronicle" to you, on account of
a paper by me on the fertilisation of orchids by insects (105/2.
"Fertilisation of British Orchids by Insect Agency." This article in the
"Gardeners' Chronicle" of June 9th, 1860, page 528, begins with a request
that observations should be made on the manner of fertilisation in the
bee-and in the fly-orchis.), as it involves a curious point, and as you
cared about my paper on kidney beans; but as you are so busy, I will not.

LETTER 106. TO C. LYELL. Down {June?} 20th {1860}.

I send Blyth (106/1. See Letter 27.); it is a dreadful handwriting; the
passage is on page 4. In a former note he told me he feared there was
hardly a chance of getting money for the Chinese expedition, and spoke of
your kindness.

Many thanks for your long and interesting letter. I wonder at, admire, and
thank you for your patience in writing so much. I rather demur to
Deinosaurus not having "free will," as surely we have. I demur also to
your putting Huxley's "force and matter" in the same category with Natural
Selection. The latter may, of course, be quite a false view; but surely it
is not getting beyond our depth to first causes.

It is truly very remarkable that the gestation of hounds (106/2. In a
letter written to Lyell on June 25th, 1860, the following paragraph
occurs: "You need not believe one word of what I said about gestation of
dogs. Since writing to you I have had more correspondence with the master
of hounds, and I see his {record?} is worth nothing. It may, of course, be
correct, but cannot be trusted. I find also different statements about the
wolf: in fact, I am all abroad.") should vary so much, while that of man
does not. It may be from multiple origin. The eggs from the Musk and the
common duck take an intermediate period in hatching; but I should rather
look at it as one of the ten thousand cases which we cannot explain—namely,
when one part or function varies in one species and not in another.

Hooker has told me nothing about his explanation of few Arctic forms; I
knew the fact before. I had speculated on what I presume, from what you
say, is his explanation (106/3. "Outlines of the Distribution of Arctic
Plants," J.D. Hooker, "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIII., page 251, 1862.
{read June 21st, 1860.} In this paper Hooker draws attention to the
exceptional character of the Greenland flora; but as regards the paucity
of its species and in its much greater resemblance to the floras of Arctic
Europe than to those of Arctic America, he considers it difficult to
account for these facts, "unless we admit Mr. Darwin's hypotheses" (see
"Origin," Edition VI., 1872, Chapter XII., page 330) of a southern
migration due to the cold of the glacial period and the subsequent return
of the northern types during the succeeding warmer period. Many of the
Greenland species, being confined to the peninsula, "would, as it were, be
driven into the sea—that is exterminated" (Hooker, op. cit., pages
253-4).); but there must have been at all times an Arctic region. I found
the speculation got too complex, as it seemed to me, to be worth following
out.

I have been doing some more interesting work with orchids. Talk of
adaptation in woodpeckers (106/4. "Can a more striking instance of
adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and
seizing insects in the chinks of the bark?" (Origin of Species," Edition
HAVE I., page 141).), some of the orchids beat it.

I showed the case to Elizabeth Wedgwood, and her remark was, "Now you have
upset your own book, for you won't persuade me that this could be effected
by Natural Selection."

LETTER 107. TO T.H. HUXLEY. July 20th {1860}.

Many thanks for your pleasant letter. I agree to every word you say about
"Fraser" and the "Quarterly." (107/1. Bishop Wilberforce's review of the
"Origin" in the "Quarterly Review," July, 1860, was republished in his
"Collected Essays," 1874. See "Life and Letters, II., page 182, and II.,
page 324, where some quotations from the review are given. For Hopkins'
review in "Fraser's Magazine," June, 1860, see "Life and Letters," II.,
314.) I have had some really admirable letters from Hopkins. I do not
suppose he has ever troubled his head about geographical distribution,
classification, morphologies, etc., and it is only those who have that
will feel any relief in having some sort of rational explanation of such
facts. Is it not grand the way in which the Bishop asserts that all such
facts are explained by ideas in God's mind? The "Quarterly" is uncommonly
clever; and I chuckled much at the way my grandfather and self are
quizzed. I could here and there see Owen's hand. By the way, how comes it
that you were not attacked? Does Owen begin to find it more prudent to
leave you alone? I would give five shillings to know what tremendous
blunder the Bishop made; for I see that a page has been cancelled and a
new page gummed in.

I am indeed most thoroughly contented with the progress of opinion. From
all that I hear from several quarters, it seems that Oxford did the
subject great good. (107/2. An account of the meeting of the British
Association at Oxford in 1860 is given in the "Life and Letters," II.,
page 320, and a fuller account in the one-volume "Life of Charles Darwin,"
1892, page 236. See also the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I.,
page 179, and the amusing account of the meeting in Mr. Tuckwell's
"Reminiscences of Oxford," London, 1900, page 50.) It is of enormous
importance the showing the world that a few first-rate men are not afraid
of expressing their opinion. I see daily more and more plainly that my
unaided book would have done absolutely nothing. Asa Gray is fighting
admirably in the United States. He is thorough master of the subject,
which cannot be said by any means of such men as even Hopkins.

I have been thinking over what you allude to about a natural history
review. (107/3. In the "Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley," Volume I., page
209, some account of the founding of the "Natural History Review" is given
in a letter to Sir J.D. Hooker of July 17th, 1860. On August 2nd Mr.
Huxley added: "Darwin wrote me a very kind expostulation about it, telling
me I ought not to waste myself on other than original work. In reply,
however, I assured him that I MUST waste myself willy-nilly, and that the
'Review' was only a save-all.") I suppose you mean really a REVIEW and not
journal for original communications in Natural History. Of the latter
there is now superabundance. With respect to a good review, there can be
no doubt of its value and utility; nevertheless, if not too late, I hope
you will consider deliberately before you decide. Remember what a deal of
work you have on your shoulders, and though you can do much, yet there is
a limit to even the hardest worker's power of working. I should deeply
regret to see you sacrificing much time which could be given to original
research. I fear, to one who can review as well as you do, there would be
the same temptation to waste time, as there notoriously is for those who
can speak well.

A review is only temporary; your work should be perennial. I know well
that you may say that unless good men will review there will be no good
reviews. And this is true. Would you not do more good by an occasional
review in some well-established review, than by giving up much time to the
editing, or largely aiding, if not editing, a review which from being
confined to one subject would not have a very large circulation? But I
must return to the chief idea which strikes me—viz., that it would
lessen the amount of original and perennial work which you could do.
Reflect how few men there are in England who can do original work in the
several lines in which you are excellently fitted. Lyell, I remember, on
analogous grounds many years ago resolved he would write no more reviews.
I am an old slowcoach, and your scheme makes me tremble. God knows in one
sense I am about the last man in England who ought to throw cold water on
any review in which you would be concerned, as I have so immensely
profited by your labours in this line.

With respect to reviewing myself, I never tried: any work of that kind
stops me doing anything else, as I cannot possibly work at odds and ends
of time. I have, moreover, an insane hatred of stopping my regular current
of work. I have now materials for a little paper or two, but I know I
shall never work them up. So I will not promise to help; though not to
help, if I could, would make me feel very ungrateful to you. You have no
idea during how short a time daily I am able to work. If I had any regular
duties, like you and Hooker, I should do absolutely nothing in science.

I am heartily glad to hear that you are better; but how such labour as
volunteer-soldiering (all honour to you) does not kill you, I cannot
understand.

For God's sake remember that your field of labour is original research in
the highest and most difficult branches of Natural History. Not that I
wish to underrate the importance of clever and solid reviews.

I must send you a line to say what a good fellow you are to send me so
long an account of the Oxford doings. I have read it twice, and sent it to
my wife, and when I get home shall read it again: it has so much
interested me. But how durst you attack a live bishop in that fashion? I
am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves? By
Jove, you seem to have done it well. If any one were to ridicule any
belief of the bishop's, would he not blandly shrug his shoulders and be
inexpressibly shocked? I am very, very sorry to hear that you are not
well; but am not surprised after all your self-imposed labour. I hope you
will soon have an outing, and that will do you real good.

I am glad to hear about J. Lubbock, whom I hope to see soon, and shall
tell him what you have said. Have you read Hopkins in the last "Fraser?"—well
put, in good spirit, except soul discussion bad, as I have told him;
nothing actually new, takes the weak points alone, and leaves out all
other considerations.

I heard from Asa Gray yesterday; he goes on fighting like a Trojan.

God bless you!—get well, be idle, and always reverence a bishop.

LETTER 109. TO J.D. DANA. Down, July 30th {1860}.

I received several weeks ago your note telling me that you could not visit
England, which I sincerely regretted, as I should most heartily have liked
to have made your personal acquaintance. You gave me an improved, but not
very good, account of your health. I should at some time be grateful for a
line to tell me how you are. We have had a miserable summer, owing to a
terribly long and severe illness of my eldest girl, who improves slightly
but is still in a precarious condition. I have been able to do nothing in
science of late. My kind friend Asa Gray often writes to me and tells me
of the warm discussions on the "Origin of Species" in the United States.
Whenever you are strong enough to read it, I know you will be dead against
me, but I know equally well that your opposition will be liberal and
philosophical. And this is a good deal more than I can say of all my
opponents in this country. I have not yet seen Agassiz's attack (109/1.
"Silliman's Journal," July, 1860. A passage from Agassiz's review is given
by Mr. Huxley in Darwin's "Life and Letters," II., page 184.), but I hope
to find it at home when I return in a few days, for I have been for
several weeks away from home on my daughter's account. Prof. Silliman sent
me an extremely kind message by Asa Gray that your Journal would be open
to a reply by me. I cannot decide till I see it, but on principle I have
resolved to avoid answering anything, as it consumes much time, often
temper, and I have said my say in the "Origin." No one person understands
my views and has defended them so well as A. Gray, though he does not by
any means go all the way with me. There was much discussion on the subject
at the British Association at Oxford, and I had many defenders, and my
side seems (for I was not there) almost to have got the best of the
battle. Your correspondent and my neighbour, J. Lubbock, goes on working
at such spare time as he has. This is an egotistical note, but I have not
seen a naturalist for months. Most sincerely and deeply do I hope that
this note may find you almost recovered.

LETTER 110. TO W.H. HARVEY.

(110/1. See Letter 95, note. This letter was written in reply to a long
one from W.H. Harvey, dated August 24th, 1860. Harvey had already
published a serio-comic squib and a review, to which references are given
in the "Life and Letters," II., pages 314 and 375; but apparently he had
not before this time completed the reading of the "Origin.")

{August, 1860.}

I have read your long letter with much interest, and I thank you for your
great liberality in sending it me. But, on reflection, I do not wish to
attempt answering any part, except to you privately. Anything said by
myself in defence would have no weight; it is best to be defended by
others, or not at all. Parts of your letter seem to me, if I may be
permitted to say so, very acute and original, and I feel it a great
compliment your giving up so much time to my book. But, on the whole, I am
disappointed; not from your not concurring with me, for I never expected
that, and, indeed, in your remarks on Chapters XII. and XIII., you go much
further with me (though a little way) than I ever anticipated, and am much
pleased at the result. But on the whole I am disappointed, because it
seems to me that you do not understand what I mean by Natural Selection,
as shown at page 11 (110/2. Harvey speaks of the perpetuation or selection
of the useful, pre-supposing "a vigilant and intelligent agent," which is
very much like saying that an intelligent agent is needed to see that the
small stones pass through the meshes of a sieve and the big ones remain
behind.) of your letter and by several of your remarks. As my book has
failed to explain my meaning, it would be hopeless to attempt it in a
letter. You speak in the early part of your letter, and at page 9, as if I
had said that Natural Selection was the sole agency of modification,
whereas I have over and over again, ad nauseam, directly said, and by
order of precedence implied (what seems to me obvious) that selection can
do nothing without previous variability (see pages 80, 108, 127, 468, 469,
etc.), "nothing can be effected unless favourable variations occur." I
consider Natural Selection as of such high importance, because it
accumulates successive variations in any profitable direction, and thus
adapts each new being to its complex conditions of life. The term
"selection," I see, deceives many persons, though I see no more reason why
it should than elective affinity, as used by the old chemists. If I had to
rewrite my book, I would use "natural preservation" or "naturally
preserved." I should think you would as soon take an emetic as re-read any
part of my book; but if you did, and were to erase selection and selected,
and insert preservation and preserved, possibly the subject would be
clearer. As you are not singular in misunderstanding my book, I should
long before this have concluded that my brains were in a haze had I not
found by published reviews, and especially by correspondence, that Lyell,
Hooker, Asa Gray, H.C. Watson, Huxley, and Carpenter, and many others,
perfectly comprehend what I mean. The upshot of your remarks at page 11 is
that my explanation, etc., and the whole doctrine of Natural Selection,
are mere empty words, signifying the "order of nature." As the above-named
clear-headed men, who do comprehend my views, all go a certain length with
me, and certainly do not think it all moonshine, I should venture to
suggest a little further reflection on your part. I do not mean by this to
imply that the opinion of these men is worth much as showing that I am
right, but merely as some evidence that I have clearer ideas than you
think, otherwise these same men must be even more muddle-headed than I am;
for they have no temptation to deceive themselves. In the forthcoming
September (110/3. "American Journal of Science and Arts," September 1860,
"Design versus Necessity," reprinted in Asa Gray's "Darwiniana," 1876,
page 62.) number of the "American Journal of Science" there is an
interesting and short theological article (by Asa Gray), which gives
incidentally with admirable clearness the theory of Natural Selection, and
therefore might be worth your reading. I think that the theological part
would interest you.

You object to all my illustrations. They are all necessarily conjectural,
and may be all false; but they were the best I could give. The bear case
(110/4. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 184. See Letter 120.) has
been well laughed at, and disingenuously distorted by some into my saying
that a bear could be converted into a whale. As it offended persons, I
struck it out in the second edition; but I still maintain that there is no
especial difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful
to its changing habits,—no more difficulty than man has found in
increasing the crop of the pigeon, by continued selection, until it is
literally as big as the whole rest of the body. If this had not been
known, how absurd it would have appeared to say that the crop of a bird
might be increased till it became like a balloon!

With respect to the ostrich, I believe that the wings have been reduced,
and are not in course of development, because the whole structure of a
bird is essentially formed for flight; and the ostrich is essentially a
bird. You will see at page 182 of the "Origin" a somewhat analogous
discussion. At page 450 of the second edition I have pointed out the
essential distinction between a nascent and rudimentary organ. If you
prefer the more complex view that the progenitor of the ostrich lost its
wings, and that the present ostrich is regaining them, I have nothing to
say in opposition.

With respect to trees on islands, I collected some cases, but took the
main facts from Alph. De Candolle, and thought they might be trusted. My
explanation may be grossly wrong; but I am not convinced it is so, and I
do not see the full force of your argument of certain herbaceous orders
having been developed into trees in certain rare cases on continents. The
case seems to me to turn altogether on the question whether generally
herbaceous orders more frequently afford trees and bushes on islands than
on continents, relatively to their areas. (110/5. In the "Origin," Edition
I., page 392, the author points out that in the presence of competing
trees an herbaceous plant would have little chance of becoming
arborescent; but on an island, with only other herbaceous plants as
competitors, it might gain an advantage by overtopping its fellows, and
become tree-like. Harvey writes: "What you say (page 392) of insular trees
belonging to orders which elsewhere include only herbaceous species seems
to me to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. You cite no particular
trees, and I may therefore be wrong in guessing that the orders you allude
to are Scrophularineae and Compositae; and the insular trees the Antarctic
Veronicas and the arborescent Compositae of St. Helena, Tasmania, etc. But
in South Africa Halleria (Scrophularineae) is often as large and woody as
an apple tree; and there are several South African arborescent Compositae
(Senecio and Oldenburgia). Besides, in Tasmania at least, the arborescent
Composites are not found competing with herbaceous plants alone, and
growing taller and taller by overtopping them...; for the most arborescent
of them all (Eurybia argophylla, the Musk tree) grows...in Eucalyptus
forests. And so of the South African Halleria, which is a tree among
trees. What the conditions of the arborescent Gerania of the Sandwich
Islands may be I am unable to say...I cannot remember any other instances,
nor can I accept your explanation in any other of the cases I have
cited.")

In page 4 of your letter you say you give up many book-species as separate
creations: I give up all, and you infer that our difference is only in
degree and not in kind. I dissent from this; for I give a distinct reason
how far I go in giving up species. I look at all forms, which resemble
each other homologically or embryologically, as certainly descended from
the same species.

You hit me hard and fairly (110/6. Harvey writes: "You ask—were all
the infinitely numerous kinds of animals and plants created as eggs or
seed, or as full grown? To this it is sufficient to reply, was your
primordial organism, or were your four or five progenitors created as egg,
seed, or full grown? Neither theory attempts to solve this riddle, nor yet
the riddle of the Omphalos." The latter point, which Mr. Darwin refuses to
give up, is at page 483 of the "Origin," "and, in the case of mammals,
were they created bearing the false marks of nourishment from the mother's
womb?" In the third edition of the "Origin," 1861, page 517, the author
adds, after the last-cited passage: "Undoubtedly these same questions
cannot be answered by those who, under the present state of science,
believe in the creation of a few aboriginal forms, or of some one form of
life. In the sixth edition, probably with a view to the umbilicus, he
writes (page 423): "Undoubtedly some of these same questions," etc., etc.
From notes in Mr. Darwin's copy of the second edition it is clear that the
change in the third edition was chiefly due to Harvey's letter. See Letter
115.) about my question (page 483, "Origin") about creation of eggs or
young, etc., (but not about mammals with the mark of the umbilical cord),
yet I still have an illogical sort of feeling that there is less
difficulty in imagining the creation of an asexual cell, increasing by
simple division.

Page 5 of your letter: I agree to every word about the antiquity of the
world, and never saw the case put by any one more strongly or more ably.
It makes, however, no more impression on me as an objection than does the
astronomer when he puts on a few hundred million miles to the distance of
the fixed stars. To compare very small things with great, Lingula, etc.,
remaining nearly unaltered from the Silurian epoch to the present day, is
like the dovecote pigeons still being identical with wild Rock-pigeons,
whereas its "fancy" offspring have been immensely modified, and are still
being modified, by means of artificial selection.

You put the difficulty of the first modification of the first protozoon
admirably. I assure you that immediately after the first edition was
published this occurred to me, and I thought of inserting it in the second
edition. I did not, because we know not in the least what the first germ
of life was, nor have we any fact at all to guide us in our speculations
on the kind of change which its offspring underwent. I dissent quite from
what you say of the myriads of years it would take to people the world
with such imagined protozoon. In how very short a time Ehrenberg
calculated that a single infusorium might make a cube of rock! A single
cube on geometrical progression would make the solid globe in (I suppose)
under a century. From what little I know, I cannot help thinking that you
underrate the effects of the physical conditions of life on these low
organisms. But I fully admit that I can give no sort of answer to your
objections; yet I must add that it would be marvellous if any man ever
could, assuming for the moment that my theory is true. You beg the
question, I think, in saying that Protococcus would be doomed to eternal
similarity. Nor can you know that the first germ resembled a Protococcus
or any other now living form.

Page 12 of your letter: There is nothing in my theory necessitating in
each case progression of organisation, though Natural Selection tends in
this line, and has generally thus acted. An animal, if it become fitted by
selection to live the life, for instance, of a parasite, will generally
become degraded. I have much regretted that I did not make this part of
the subject clearer. I left out this and many other subjects, which I now
see ought to have been introduced. I have inserted a discussion on this
subject in the foreign editions. (110/7. In the third Edition a discussion
on this point is added in Chapter IV.) In no case will any organic being
tend to retrograde, unless such retrogradation be an advantage to its
varying offspring; and it is difficult to see how going back to the
structure of the unknown supposed original protozoon could ever be an
advantage.

Page 13 of your letter: I have been more glad to read your discussion on
"dominant" forms than any part of your letter. (110/8. Harvey writes:
"Viewing organic nature in its widest aspect, I think it is unquestionable
that the truly dominant races are not those of high, but those of low
organisation"; and goes on to quote the potato disease, etc. In the third
edition of the "Origin," page 56, a discussion is introduced defining the
author's use of the term "dominant.") I can now see that I have not been
cautious enough in confining my definition and meaning. I cannot say that
you have altered my views. If Botrytis {Phytophthora} had exterminated the
wild potato, a low form would have conquered a high; but I cannot remember
that I have ever said (I am sure I never thought) that a low form would
never conquer a high. I have expressly alluded to parasites half
exterminating game-animals, and to the struggle for life being sometimes
between forms as different as possible: for instance, between grasshoppers
and herbivorous quadrupeds. Under the many conditions of life which this
world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and
is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant. I never dreamed of
considering that any one group, under all conditions and throughout the
world, would be predominant. How could vertebrata be predominant under the
conditions of life in which parasitic worms live? What good would their
perfected senses and their intellect serve under such conditions? When I
have spoken of dominant forms, it has been in relation to the
multiplication of new specific forms, and the dominance of any one species
has been relative generally to other members of the same group, or at
least to beings exposed to similar conditions and coming into competition.
But I daresay that I have not in the "Origin" made myself clear, and space
has rendered it impossible. But I thank you most sincerely for your
valuable remarks, though I do not agree with them.

About sudden jumps: I have no objection to them—they would aid me in
some cases. All I can say is, that I went into the subject, and found no
evidence to make me believe in jumps; and a good deal pointing in the
other direction. You will find it difficult (page 14 of your letter) to
make a marked line of separation between fertile and infertile crosses. I
do not see how the apparently sudden change (for the suddenness of change
in a chrysalis is of course largely only apparent) in larvae during their
development throws any light on the subject.

I wish I could have made this letter better worth sending to you. I have
had it copied to save you at least the intolerable trouble of reading my
bad handwriting. Again I thank you for your great liberality and kindness
in sending me your criticisms, and I heartily wish we were a little nearer
in accord; but we must remain content to be as wide asunder as the poles,
but without, thank God, any malice or other ill-feeling.

LETTER 111. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(111/1. Dr. Asa Gray's articles in the "Atlantic Monthly," July, August,
and October, 1860, were published in England as a pamphlet, and form
Chapter III. in his "Darwiniana" (1876). See "Life and Letters," II., page
338. The article referred to in the present letter is that in the August
number.)

Down, September 10th {1860}.

I send by this post a review by Asa Gray, so good that I should like you
to see it; I must beg for its return. I want to ask, also, your opinion
about getting it reprinted in England. I thought of sending it to the
Editor of the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. Hist." in which two hostile reviews
have appeared (although I suppose the "Annals" have a very poor
circulation), and asking them in the spirit of fair play to print this,
with Asa Gray's name, which I will take the responsibility of adding.
Also, as it is long, I would offer to pay expenses.

It is very good, in addition, as bringing in Pictet so largely. (111/2.
Pictet (1809-72) wrote a "perfectly fair" review opposed to the "Origin."
See "Life and Letters," II., page 297.) Tell me briefly what you think.

What an astonishing expedition this is of Hooker's to Syria! God knows
whether it is wise.

How are you and all yours? I hope you are not working too hard. For
Heaven's sake, think that you may become such a beast as I am. How goes on
the "Nat. Hist. Review?" Talking of reviews, I damned with a good grace
the review in the "Athenaeum" (111/3. Review of "The Glaciers of the Alps"
("Athenaeum," September 1, 1860, page 280).) on Tyndall with a mean,
scurvy allusion to you. It is disgraceful about Tyndall,—in fact,
doubting his veracity.

I am very tired, and hate nearly the whole world. So good-night, and take
care of your digestion, which means brain.

It has just occurred to me that I took no notice of your questions on
extinction in St. Helena. I am nearly sure that Hooker has information on
the extinction of plants (112/1. "Principles of Geology," Volume II.
(Edition X., 1868), page 453. Facts are quoted from Hooker illustrating
the extermination of plants in St. Helena.), but I cannot remember where I
have seen it. One may confidently assume that many insects were
exterminated.

By the way, I heard lately from Wollaston, who told me that he had just
received eminently Madeira and Canary Island insect forms from the Cape of
Good Hope, to which trifling distance, if he is logical, he will have to
extend his Atlantis! I have just received your letter, and am very much
pleased that you approve. But I am utterly disgusted and ashamed about the
dingo. I cannot think how I could have misunderstood the paper so grossly.
I hope I have not blundered likewise in its co-existence with extinct
species: what horrid blundering! I am grieved to hear that you think I
must work in the notes in the text; but you are so much better a judge
that I will obey. I am sorry that you had the trouble of returning the Dog
MS., which I suppose I shall receive to-morrow.

I mean to give good woodcuts of all the chief races of pigeons. (112/2.
"The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.)

Except the C. oenas (112/3. The Columba oenas of Europe roosts on trees
and builds its nest in holes, either in trees or the ground ("Var. of
Animals," Volume I., page 183).) (which is partly, indeed almost entirely,
a wood pigeon), there is no other rock pigeon with which our domestic
pigeon would cross—that is, if several exceedingly close
geographical races of C. livia, which hardly any ornithologist looks at as
true species, be all grouped under C. livia. (112/4. Columba livia, the
Rock-pigeon. "We may conclude with confidence that all the domestic races,
notwithstanding their great amount of difference, are descended from the
Columba livia, including under this name certain wild races" (op. cit.,
Volume I., page 223).)

I am writing higgledy-piggledy, as I re-read your letter. I thought that
my letter had been much wilder than yours. I quite feel the comfort of
writing when one may "alter one's speculations the day after." It is
beyond my knowledge to weigh ranks of birds and monotremes; in the
respiratory and circulatory system and muscular energy I believe birds are
ahead of all mammals.

I knew that you must have known about New Guinea; but in writing to you I
never make myself civil!

After treating some half-dozen or dozen domestic animals in the same
manner as I treat dogs, I intended to have a chapter of conclusions. But
Heaven knows when I shall finish: I get on very slowly. You would be
surprised how long it took me to pick out what seemed useful about dogs
out of multitudes of details.

I see the force of your remark about more isolated races of man in old
times, and therefore more in number. It seems to me difficult to weigh
probabilities. Perhaps so, if you refer to very slight differences in the
races: to make great differences much time would be required, and then,
even at the earliest period I should have expected one race to have
spread, conquered, and exterminated the others.

With respect to Falconer's series of Elephants (112/5. In 1837 Dr.
Falconer and Sir Proby Cautley collected a large number of fossil remains
from the Siwalik Hills. Falconer and Cautley, "Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,"
1845-49.), I think the case could be answered better than I have done in
the "Origin," page 334. (112/6. "Origin of Species," Edition I., page 334.
"It is no real objection to the truth of the statement that the fauna of
each period as a whole is nearly intermediate in character between the
preceding and succeeding faunas, that certain genera offer exceptions to
the rule. For instance, mastodons and elephants, when arranged by Dr.
Falconer in two series, first according to their mutual affinities and
then according to their periods of existence, do not accord in
arrangement. The species extreme in character are not the oldest, or the
most recent; nor are those which are intermediate in character
intermediate in age. But supposing for an instant, in this and other such
cases, that the record of the first appearance and disappearance of the
species was perfect, we have no reason to believe that forms successively
produced necessarily endure for corresponding lengths of time. A very
ancient form might occasionally last much longer than a form elsewhere
subsequently produced, especially in the case of terrestrial productions
inhabiting separated districts" (pages 334-5). The same words occur in the
later edition of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page 306.) All these new
discoveries show how imperfect the discovered series is, which Falconer
thought years ago was nearly perfect.

I will send to-day or to-morrow two articles by Asa Gray. The longer one
(now not finally corrected) will come out in the October "Atlantic
Monthly," and they can be got at Trubner's. Hearty thanks for all your
kindness.

Do not hurry over Asa Gray. He strikes me as one of the best reasoners and
writers I ever read. He knows my book as well as I do myself.

I enclose a letter of Wyman's which touches on brains. Wyman is mistaken
in supposing that I did not know that the Cave-rat was an American form; I
made special enquiries. He does not know that the eye of the Tucotuco was
carefully dissected.

With respect to reviews by A. Gray. I thought of sending the Dialogue to
the "Saturday Review" in a week's time or so, as they have lately
discussed Design. (113/1. "Discussion between two Readers of Darwin's
Treatise on the Origin of Species, upon its Natural Theology" ("Amer.
Journ. Sci." Volume XXX, page 226, 1860). Reprinted in "Darwiniana," 1876,
page 62. The article begins with the following question: "First Reader—Is
Darwin's theory atheistic or pantheistic? Or does it tend to atheism or
pantheism?" The discussion is closed by the Second Reader, who thus sums
up his views: "Wherefore we may insist that, for all that yet appears, the
argument for design, as presented by the natural theologians, is just as
good now, if we accept Darwin's theory, as it was before the theory was
promulgated; and that the sceptical juryman, who was about to join the
other eleven in an unanimous verdict in favour of design, finds no good
excuse for keeping the Court longer waiting.") I have sent the second, or
August, "Atlantic" article to the "Annals and Mag. of Nat. History."
(113/2. "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., pages 373-86, 1860. (From
the "Atlantic Monthly," August, 1860.)) The copy which you have I want to
send to Pictet, as I told A. Gray I would, thinking from what he said he
would like this to be done. I doubt whether it would be possible to get
the October number reprinted in this country; so that I am in no hurry at
all for this.

I had a letter a few weeks ago from Symonds on the imperfection of the
Geological Record, less clear and forcible than I expected. I answered him
at length and very civilly, though I could hardly make out what he was
driving at. He spoke about you in a way which it did me good to read.

I am extremely glad that you like A. Gray's reviews. How generous and
unselfish he has been in all his labour! Are you not struck by his
metaphors and similes? I have told him he is a poet and not a lawyer.

I should altogether doubt on turtles being converted into land tortoises
on any one island. Remember how closely similar tortoises are on all
continents, as well as islands; they must have all descended from one
ancient progenitor, including the gigantic tortoise of the Himalaya.

I think you must be cautious in not running the convenient doctrine that
only one species out of very many ever varies. Reflect on such cases as
the fauna and flora of Europe, North America, and Japan, which are so
similar, and yet which have a great majority of their species either
specifically distinct, or forming well-marked races. We must in such cases
incline to the belief that a multitude of species were once identically
the same in all the three countries when under a warmer climate and more
in connection; and have varied in all the three countries. I am inclined
to believe that almost every species (as we see with nearly all our
domestic productions) varies sufficiently for Natural Selection to pick
out and accumulate new specific differences, under new organic and
inorganic conditions of life, whenever a place is open in the polity of
nature. But looking to a long lapse of time and to the whole world, or to
large parts of the world, I believe only one or a few species of each
large genus ultimately becomes victorious, and leaves modified
descendants. To give an imaginary instance: the jay has become modified in
the three countries into (I believe) three or four species; but the jay
genus is not, apparently, so dominant a group as the crows; and in the
long run probably all the jays will be exterminated and be replaced
perhaps by some modified crows.

I merely give this illustration to show what seems to me probable.

But oh! what work there is before we shall understand the genealogy of
organic beings!

With respect to the Apteryx, I know not enough of anatomy; but ask Dr. F.
whether the clavicle, etc., do not give attachment to some of the muscles
of respiration. If my views are at all correct, the wing of the Apteryx
(113/3. "Origin of Species," Edition VI., page 140.) cannot be (page 452
of the "Origin") a nascent organ, as these wings are useless. I dare not
trust to memory, but I know I found the whole sternum always reduced in
size in all the fancy and confined pigeons relatively to the same bones in
the wild Rock-pigeon: the keel was generally still further reduced
relatively to the reduced length of the sternum; but in some breeds it was
in a most anomalous manner more prominent. I have got a lot of facts on
the reduction of the organs of flight in the pigeon, which took me weeks
to work out, and which Huxley thought curious.

I am utterly ashamed, and groan over my handwriting. It was "Natural
Preservation." Natural persecution is what the author ought to suffer. It
rejoices me that you do not object to the term. Hooker made the same
remark that it ought to have been "Variation and Natural Selection." Yet
with domestic productions, when selection is spoken of, variation is
always implied. But I entirely agree with your and Hooker's remark.

Have you begun regularly to write your book on the antiquity of man?
(113/4. Published in 1863.)

I do NOT agree with your remark that I make Natural Selection do too much
work. You will perhaps reply that every man rides his hobby-horse to
death; and that I am in the galloping state.

I have two notes to thank you for, and I return Wollaston. It has always
seemed to me rather strange that Forbes, Wollaston and Co. should argue,
from the presence of allied, and not identical species in islands, for the
former continuity of land.

They argue, I suppose, from the species being allied in different regions
of the same continent, though specifically distinct. But I think one might
on the creative doctrine argue with equal force in a directly reverse
manner, and say that, as species are so often markedly distinct, yet
allied, on islands, all our continents existed as islands first, and their
inhabitants were first created on these islands, and since became mingled
together, so as not to be so distinct as they now generally are on
islands.

LETTER 115. TO H.G. BRONN. Down, October 5th {1860}.

I ought to apologise for troubling you, but I have at last carefully read
your excellent criticisms on my book. (115/1. Bronn added critical remarks
to his German translation of the "Origin": see "Life and Letters," II.,
page 279.) I agree with much of them, and wholly with your final sentence.
The objections and difficulties which may be urged against my view are
indeed heavy enough almost to break my back, but it is not yet broken! You
put very well and very fairly that I can in no one instance explain the
course of modification in any particular instance. I could make some sort
of answer to your case of the two rats; and might I not turn round and ask
him who believes in the separate creation of each species, why one rat has
a longer tail or shorter ears than another? I presume that most people
would say that these characters were of some use, or stood in some
connection with other parts; and if so, Natural Selection would act on
them. But as you put the case, it tells well against me. You argue most
justly against my question, whether the many species were created as eggs
(115/2. See Letter 110.) or as mature, etc. I certainly had no right to
ask that question. I fully agree that there might have been as well a
hundred thousand creations as eight or ten, or only one. But then, on the
view of eight or ten creations (i.e. as many as there are distinct types
of structure) we can on my view understand the homological and
embryological resemblance of all the organisms of each type, and on this
ground almost alone I disbelieve in the innumerable acts of creation.
There are only two points on which I think you have misunderstood me. I
refer only to one Glacial period as affecting the distribution of organic
beings; I did not wish even to allude to the doubtful evidence of glacial
action in the Permian and Carboniferous periods. Secondly, I do not
believe that the process of development has always been carried on at the
same rate in all different parts of the world. Australia is opposed to
such belief. The nearly contemporaneous equal development in past periods
I attribute to the slow migration of the higher and more dominant forms
over the whole world, and not to independent acts of development in
different parts. Lastly, permit me to add that I cannot see the force of
your objection, that nothing is effected until the origin of life is
explained: surely it is worth while to attempt to follow out the action of
electricity, though we know not what electricity is.

If you should at any time do me the favour of writing to me, I should be
very much obliged if you would inform me whether you have yourself
examined Brehm's subspecies of birds; for I have looked through some of
his writings, but have never met an ornithologist who believed in his
{illegible}. Are these subspecies really characteristic of certain
different regions of Germany?

Should you write, I should much like to know how the German edition sells.

LETTER 116. TO J.S. HENSLOW. October 26th {1860}.

Many thanks for your note and for all the trouble about the seeds, which
will be most useful to me next spring. On my return home I will send the
shillings. (116/1. Shillings for the little girls in Henslow's parish who
collected seeds for Darwin.) I concluded that Dr. Bree had blundered about
the Celts. I care not for his dull, unvarying abuse of me, and singular
misrepresentation. But at page 244 he in fact doubts my deliberate word,
and that is the act of a man who has not the soul of a gentleman in him.
Kingsley is "the celebrated author and divine" (116/2. "Species not
Transmutable," by C.R. Bree. After quoting from the "Origin," Edition II.,
page 481, the words in which a celebrated author and divine confesses that
"he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of
the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms, etc.," Dr. Bree
goes on: "I think we ought to have had the name of this divine given with
this remarkable statement. I confess that I have not yet fully made up my
mind that any divine could have ever penned lines so fatal to the truths
he is called upon to teach.") whose striking sentence I give in the second
edition with his permission. I did not choose to ask him to let me use his
name, and as he did not volunteer, I had of course no choice. (116/3. We
are indebted to Mr. G.W. Prothero for calling our attention to the
following striking passage from the works of a divine of this period:—"Just
a similar scepticism has been evinced by nearly all the first
physiologists of the day, who have joined in rejecting the development
theories of Lamarck and the 'Vestiges'...Yet it is now acknowledged under
the high sanction of the name of Owen that 'creation' is only another name
for our ignorance of the mode of production...while a work has now
appeared by a naturalist of the most acknowledged authority, Mr. Darwin's
masterly volume on the 'Origin of Species,' by the law of 'natural
selection,' which now substantiates on undeniable grounds the very
principle so long denounced by the first naturalists—the origination
of new species by natural causes: a work which must soon bring about an
entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the
self-evolving powers of nature."—Prof. Baden Powell's "Study of the
Evidences of Christianity," "Essays and Reviews," 7th edition, 1861 (pages
138, 139).)

Dr. Freke has sent me his paper, which is far beyond my scope—something
like the capital quiz in the "Anti-Jacobin" on my grandfather, which was
quoted in the "Quarterly Review."

LETTER 117. TO D.T. ANSTED.

(117/1. The following letter was published in Professor Meldola's
presidential address to the Entomological Society, 1897, and to him we are
indebted for a copy.)

15, Marine Parade, Eastbourne, October 27th {1860}.

As I am away from home on account of my daughter's health, I do not know
your address, and fly this at random, and it is of very little consequence
if it never reaches you.

I have just been reading the greater part of your "Geological Gossip," and
have found part very interesting; but I want to express my admiration at
the clear and correct manner in which you have given a sketch of Natural
Selection. You will think this very slight praise; but I declare that the
majority of readers seem utterly incapable of comprehending my long
argument. Some of the reviewers, who have servilely stuck to my
illustrations and almost to my words, have been correct, but
extraordinarily few others have succeeded. I can see plainly, by your new
illustrations and manner and order of putting the case, that you
thoroughly comprehend the subject. I assure you this is most gratifying to
me, and it is the sole way in which the public can be indoctrinated. I am
often in despair in making the generality of NATURALISTS even comprehend
me. Intelligent men who are not naturalists and have not a bigoted idea of
the term species, show more clearness of mind. I think that you have done
the subject a real service, and I sincerely thank you. No doubt there will
be much error found in my book, but I have great confidence that the main
view will be, in time, found correct; for I find, without exception, that
those naturalists who went at first one inch with me now go a foot or yard
with me.

This note obviously requires no answer.

LETTER 118. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 22nd {1860}.

I thank you sincerely for writing to me and for your very interesting
letter. Your name has for very long been familiar to me, and I have heard
of your zealous exertions in the cause of Natural History. But I did not
know that you had worked with high philosophical questions before your
mind. I have an old belief that a good observer really means a good
theorist (118/1. For an opposite opinion, see Letter 13.), and I fully
expect to find your observations most valuable. I am very sorry to hear
that your health is shattered; but I trust under a healthy climate it may
be restored. I can sympathise with you fully on this score, for I have had
bad health for many years, and fear I shall ever remain a confirmed
invalid. I am delighted to hear that you, with all your large practical
knowledge of Natural History, anticipated me in many respects and concur
with me. As you say, I have been thoroughly well attacked and reviled
(especially by entomologists—Westwood, Wollaston, and A. Murray have
all reviewed and sneered at me to their hearts' content), but I care
nothing about their attacks; several really good judges go a long way with
me, and I observe that all those who go some little way tend to go
somewhat further. What a fine philosophical mind your friend Mr. Wallace
has, and he has acted, in relation to me, like a true man with a noble
spirit. I see by your letter that you have grappled with several of the
most difficult problems, as it seems to me, in Natural History—such
as the distinctions between the different kinds of varieties,
representative species, etc. Perhaps I shall find some facts in your paper
on intermediate varieties in intermediate regions, on which subject I have
found remarkably little information. I cannot tell you how glad I am to
hear that you have attended to the curious point of equatorial
refrigeration. I quite agree that it must have been small; yet the more I
go into that question the more convinced I feel that there was during the
Glacial period some migration from north to south. The sketch in the
"Origin" gives a very meagre account of my fuller MS. essay on this
subject.

I shall be particularly obliged for a copy of your paper when published
(118/2. Probably a paper by Bates entitled "Contributions to an Insect
Fauna of the Amazon Valley" ("Trans. Entomol. Soc." Volume V., page 335,
1858-61).); and if any suggestions occur to me (not that you require any)
or questions, I will write and ask.

I have at once to prepare a new edition of the "Origin," (118/3. Third
Edition, March, 1861.), and I will do myself the pleasure of sending you a
copy; but it will be only very slightly altered.

Cases of neuter ants, divided into castes, with intermediate gradations
(which I imagine are rare) interest me much. See "Origin" on the
driver-ant, page 241 (please look at the passage.)

LETTER 119. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(119/1. This refers to the first number of the new series of the "Natural
History Review," 1861, a periodical which Huxley was largely instrumental
in founding, and of which he was an editor (see Letter 107). The first
series was published in Dublin, and ran to seven volumes between 1854 and
1860. The new series came to an end in 1865.)

Down, January, 3rd {1861}.

I have just finished No. 1 of the "Natural History Review," and must
congratulate you, as chiefly concerned, on its excellence. The whole seems
to me admirable,—so admirable that it is impossible that other
numbers should be so good, but it would be foolish to expect it. I am
rather a croaker, and I do rather fear that the merit of the articles will
be above the run of common readers and subscribers. I have been much
interested by your brain article. (119/2. The "Brain article" of Huxley
bore the title "On the Zoological Relations of Man with the Lower
Animals," and appeared in No. 1, January 1861, page 67. It was Mr.
Huxley's vindication of the unqualified contradiction given by him at the
Oxford meeting of the British Association to Professor Owen's assertions
as to the difference between the brains of man and the higher apes. The
sentence omitted by Owen in his lecture before the University of Cambridge
was a footnote on the close structural resemblance between Homo and
Pithecus, which occurs in his paper on the characters of the class
Mammalia in the "Linn. Soc. Journal," Volume II., 1857, page 20. According
to Huxley the lecture, or "Essay on the Classification of the Mammalia,"
was, with this omission, a reprint of the Linnean paper. In "Man's Place
in Nature," page 110, note, Huxley remarks: "Surely it is a little
singular that the 'anatomist,' who finds it 'difficult' to 'determine the
difference' between Homo and Pithecus, should yet range them, on
anatomical grounds, in distinct sub-classes.") What a complete and awful
smasher (and done like a "buttered angel") it is for Owen! What a humbug
he is to have left out the sentence in the lecture before the orthodox
Cambridge dons! I like Lubbock's paper very much: how well he writes.
(119/3. Sir John Lubbock's paper was a review of Leydig on the Daphniidae.
M'Donnell's was "On the Homologies of the Electric Organ of the Torpedo,"
afterwards used in the "Origin" (see Edition VI., page 150).) M'Donnell,
of course, pleases me greatly. But I am very curious to know who wrote the
Protozoa article: I shall hear, if it be not a secret, from Lubbock. It
strikes me as very good, and, by Jove, how Owen is shown up—"this
great and sound reasoner"! By the way, this reminds me of a passage which
I have just observed in Owen's address at Leeds, which a clever reviewer
might turn into good fun. He defines (page xc) and further on amplifies
his definition that creation means "a process he knows not what." And in a
previous sentence he says facts shake his confidence that the Apteryx in
New Zealand and Red Grouse in England are "distinct creations." So that he
has no confidence that these birds were produced by "processes he knows
not what!" To what miserable inconsistencies and rubbish this truckling to
opposite opinions leads the great generaliser! (119/4. In the "Historical
Sketch," which forms part of the later editions of the "Origin," Mr.
Darwin made use of Owen's Leeds Address in the manner sketched above. See
"Origin," Edition VI., page xvii.)

Farewell: I heartily rejoice in the clear merit of this number. I hope
Mrs. Huxley goes on well. Etty keeps much the same, but has not got up to
the same pitch as when you were here. Farewell.

LETTER 120. TO JAMES LAMONT. Down, February 25th {1861}.

I am extremely much obliged for your very kind present of your beautiful
work, "Seasons with the Sea-Horses;" and I have no doubt that I shall find
much interesting from so careful and acute an observer as yourself.
(120/1. "Seasons with the Sea-Horses; or, Sporting Adventures in the
Northern Seas." London, 1861. Mr. Lamont (loc. cit., page 273) writes:
"The polar bear seems to me to be nothing more than a variety of the bears
inhabiting Northern Europe, Asia, and America; and it surely requires no
very great stretch of the imagination to suppose that this variety was
originally created, not as we see him now, but by individuals of Ursus
arctos in Siberia, who, finding their means of subsistence running short,
and pressed by hunger, ventured on the ice and caught some seals. These
individuals would find that they could make a subsistence in this way, and
would take up their residence on the shore and gradually take to a life on
the ice...Then it stands to reason that those individuals who might happen
to be palest in colour would have the best chance of succeeding in
surprising seals...The process of Natural Selection would do the rest, and
Ursus arctos would in the course of a few thousands, or a few millions of
years, be transformed into the variety at present known as Ursus
maritimus." The author adds the following footnote (op. cit., page 275):
"It will be obvious to any one that I follow Mr. Darwin in these remarks;
and, although the substance of this chapter was written in Spitzbergen,
before "The Origin of Species" was published, I do not claim any
originality for my views; and I also cheerfully acknowledge that, but for
the publication of that work in connection with the name of so
distinguished a naturalist, I never would have ventured to give to the
world my own humble opinions on the subject.")

P.S. I have just been cutting the leaves of your book, and have been very
much pleased and surprised at your note about what you wrote in
Spitzbergen. As you thought it out independently, it is no wonder that you
so clearly understand Natural Selection, which so few of my reviewers do
or pretend not to do.

I never expected to see any one so heroically bold as to defend my bear
illustration. (120/2. "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne
swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a
whale, insects in the water."—"Origin," Edition VI., page 141. See
Letter 110.) But a man who has done all that you have done must be bold!
It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about
this bear. I am much pleased with your remarks, and thank you cordially
for coming to the rescue.

LETTER 121. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.

(121/1. Mr. Darwin's letters to Mr. Tegetmeier, taken as a whole, give a
striking picture of the amount of assistance which Darwin received from
him during many years. Some citations from these letters given in "Life
and Letters," II., pages 52, 53, show how freely and generously Mr.
Tegetmeier gave his help, and how much his co-operation was valued.

The following letter is given as an example of the questions on which
Darwin sought Mr. Tegetmeier's opinion and guidance.)

Down, March 22 {1861}.

I ought to have answered your last note sooner; but I have been very busy.
How wonderfully successful you have been in breeding Pouters! You have a
good right to be proud of your accuracy of eye and judgment. I am in the
thick of poultry, having just commenced, and shall be truly grateful for
the skulls, if you can send them by any conveyance to the Nag's Head next
Thursday.

You ask about vermilion wax: positively it was not in the state of comb,
but in solid bits and cakes, which were thrown with other rubbish not far
from my hives. You can make any use of the fact you like. Combs could be
concentrically and variously coloured and dates recorded by giving for a
few days wax darkly coloured with vermilion and indigo, and I daresay
other substances. You ask about my crossed fowls, and this leads me to
make a proposition to you, which I hope cannot be offensive to you. I
trust you know me too well to think that I would propose anything
objectionable to the best of my judgment. The case is this: for my object
of treating poultry I must give a sketch of several breeds, with remarks
on various points. I do not feel strong on the subject. Now, when my MS.
is fairly copied in an excellent handwriting, would you read it over,
which would take you at most an hour or two, and make comments in pencil
on it; and accept, like a barrister, a fee, we will say, of a couple of
guineas. This would be a great assistance to me, specially if you would
allow me to put a note, stating that you, a distinguished judge and
fancier, had read it over. I would state that you doubted or concurred, as
each case might be, of course striking out what you were sure was
incorrect. There would be little new in my MS. to you; but if by chance
you used any of my facts or conclusions before I published, I should wish
you to state that they were on my authority; otherwise I shall be accused
of stealing from you. There will be little new, except that perhaps I have
consulted some out-of-the-way books, and have corresponded with some good
authorities. Tell me frankly what you think of this; but unless you will
oblige me by accepting remuneration, I cannot and will not give you such
trouble. I have little doubt that several points will arise which will
require investigation, as I care for many points disregarded by fanciers;
and according to any time thus spent, you will, I trust, allow me to make
remuneration. I hope that you will grant me this favour. There is one
assistance which I will now venture to beg of you—viz., to get me,
if you can, another specimen of an old white Angora rabbit. I want it dead
for the skeleton; and not knocked on the head. Secondly, I see in the
"Cottage Gardener" (March 19th, page 375) there are impure half-lops with
one ear quite upright and shorter than the other lopped ear. I much want a
dead one. Baker cannot get one. Baily is looking out; but I want two
specimens. Can you assist me, if you meet any rabbit-fancier? I have had
rabbits with one ear more lopped than the other; but I want one with one
ear quite upright and shorter, and the other quite long and lopped.

LETTER 122. TO H.W. BATES. Down, March 26th {1861}.

I have read your papers with extreme interest, and I have carefully read
every word of them. (122/1. "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the
Amazon Valley." (Read March 5th and November 24th, 1860). "Entomological
Soc. Trans." V., pages 223 and 335).) They seem to me to be far richer in
facts of variation, and especially on the distribution of varieties and
subspecies, than anything which I have read. Hereafter I shall re-read
them, and hope in my future work to profit by them and make use of them.
The amount of variation has much surprised me. The analogous variation of
distinct species in the same regions strikes me as particularly curious.
The greater variability of the female sex is new to me. Your Guiana case
seems in some degree analogous, as far as plants are concerned, with the
modern plains of La Plata, which seem to have been colonised from the
north, but the species have been hardly modified. (122/2. Mr. Bates (page
349) gives reason to believe that the Guiana region should be considered
"a perfectly independent province," and that it has formed a centre
"whence radiated the species which now people the low lands on its
borders.")

Would you kindly answer me two or three questions if in your power? When
species A becomes modified in another region into a well-marked form C,
but is connected with it by one (or more) gradational forms B inhabiting
an intermediate region; does this form B generally exist in equal numbers
with A and C, OR INHABIT AN EQUALLY LARGE AREA? The probability is that
you cannot answer this question, though one of your cases seems to bear on
it...

You will, I think, be glad to hear that I now often hear of naturalists
accepting my views more or less fully; but some are curiously cautious in
running the risk of any small odium in expressing their belief.

LETTER 123. TO H.W. BATES. Down, April 4th {1861}.

I have been unwell, so have delayed thanking you for your admirable
letter. I hope you will not think me presumptuous in saying how much I
have been struck with your varied knowledge, and with the decisive manner
in which you bring it to bear on each point,—a rare and most high
quality, as far as my experience goes. I earnestly hope you will find time
to publish largely: before the Linnean Society you might bring boldly out
your views on species. Have you ever thought of publishing your travels,
and working in them the less abstruse parts of your Natural History? I
believe it would sell, and be a very valuable contribution to Natural
History. You must also have seen a good deal of the natives. I know well
it would be quite unreasonable to ask for any further information from
you; but I will just mention that I am now, and shall be for a long time,
writing on domestic varieties of all animals. Any facts would be useful,
especially any showing that savages take any care in breeding their
animals, or in rejecting the bad and preserving the good; or any fancies
which they may have that one coloured or marked dog, etc., is better than
another. I have already collected much on this head, but am greedy for
facts. You will at once see their bearing on variation under
domestication.

Hardly anything in your letter has pleased me more than about sexual
selection. In my larger MS. (and indeed in the "Origin" with respect to
the tuft of hairs on the breast of the cock-turkey) I have guarded myself
against going too far; but I did not at all know that male and female
butterflies haunted rather different sites. If I had to cut up myself in a
review I would have {worried?} and quizzed sexual selection; therefore,
though I am fully convinced that it is largely true, you may imagine how
pleased I am at what you say on your belief. This part of your letter to
me is a quintessence of richness. The fact about butterflies attracted by
coloured sepals is another good fact, worth its weight in gold. It would
have delighted the heart of old Christian C. Sprengel—now many years
in his grave.

I am glad to hear that you have specially attended to "mimetic" analogies—a
most curious subject; I hope you publish on it. I have for a long time
wished to know whether what Dr. Collingwood asserts is true—that the
most striking cases generally occur between insects inhabiting the same
country.

LETTER 124. TO F.W. HUTTON. Down, April 20th {1861}.

I hope that you will permit me to thank you for sending me a copy of your
paper in "The Geologist" (124/1. In a letter to Hooker (April 23rd?, 1861)
Darwin refers to Hutton's review as "very original," and adds that Hutton
is "one of the very few who see that the change of species cannot be
directly proved..." ("Life and Letters," II., page 362). The review
appeared in "The Geologist" (afterwards known as "The Geological
Magazine") for 1861, pages 132-6 and 183-8. A letter on "Difficulties of
Darwinism" is published in the same volume of "The Geologist," page 286.),
and at the same time to express my opinion that you have done the subject
a real service by the highly original, striking, and condensed manner with
which you have put the case. I am actually weary of telling people that I
do not pretend to adduce direct evidence of one species changing into
another, but that I believe that this view in the main is correct, because
so many phenomena can be thus grouped together and explained. But it is
generally of no use; I cannot make persons see this. I generally throw in
their teeth the universally admitted theory of the undulation of light,—neither
the undulation nor the very existence of ether being proved, yet admitted
because the view explains so much. You are one of the very few who have
seen this, and have now put it most forcibly and clearly. I am much
pleased to see how carefully you have read my book, and, what is far more
important, reflected on so many points with an independent spirit. As I am
deeply interested in the subject (and I hope not exclusively under a
personal point of view) I could not resist venturing to thank you for the
right good service which you have done.

I need hardly say that this note requires no answer.

LETTER 125. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(125/1. Parts of this letter are published in "Life and Letters," II.,
page 362.)

Down, {April} 23rd, {1861}.

I have been much interested by Bentham's paper in the "Natural History
Review," but it would not, of course, from familiarity, strike you as it
did me. (125/2. This refers to Bentham's paper "On the Species and Genera
of Plants, etc." "Nat. Hist. Review," April, 1861, page 133, which is
founded on, or extracted from, a paper read before the Linn. Soc.,
November 15th, 1858. It had been originally set down to be read on July
1st, 1858, but gave way to the papers of Darwin and Wallace. Mr. Bentham
has described ("Life and Letters," II., page 294) how he reluctantly
cancelled the parts urging "original fixity" of specific type, and the
remainder seems not to have been published except in the above-quoted
paper in the "Nat. Hist. Review.") I liked the whole—all the facts
on the nature of close and varying species. Good Heavens! to think of the
British botanists turning up their noses and saying that he knows nothing
of British plants! I was also pleased at his remarks on classification,
because it showed me that I wrote truly on this subject in the "Origin." I
saw Bentham at the Linnean Society, and had some talk with him and Lubbock
and Edgeworth, Wallich, and several others. I asked Bentham to give us his
ideas of species; whether partially with us or dead against us, he would
write excellent matter. He made no answer, but his manner made me think he
might do so if urged—so do you attack him. Every one was speaking
with affection and anxiety of Henslow. I dined with Bell at the Linnean
Club, and liked my dinner...dining-out is such a novelty to me that I
enjoyed it. Bell has a real good heart. I liked Rolleston's paper, but I
never read anything so obscure and not self-evident as his "canons."
(125/3. See "Nat. Hist. Review," 1861, page 206. The paper is "On the
Brain of the Orang Utang," and forms part of the bitter controversy of
this period to which reference occurs in letters to Huxley and elsewhere
in these volumes. Rolleston's work is quoted by Huxley ("Man's Place in
Nature," page 117) as part of the crushing refutation of Owen's position.
Mr. Huxley's letter referred to above is no doubt that in the "Athenaeum,"
April 13th, 1861, page 498; it is certainly severe, but to those who know
Mr. Huxley's "Succinct History of the Controversy," etc. ("Man's Place in
Nature," page 113), it will not seem too severe.) I had a dim perception
of the truth of your profound remark—that he wrote in fear and
trembling "of God, man, and monkeys," but I would alter it into "God, man,
Owen, and monkeys." Huxley's letter was truculent, and I see that every
one thinks it too truculent; but in simple truth I am become quite
demoniacal about Owen—worse than Huxley; and I told Huxley that I
should put myself under his care to be rendered milder. But I mean to try
and get more angelic in my feelings; yet I never shall forget his cordial
shake of the hand, when he was writing as spitefully as he possibly could
against me. But I have always thought that you have more cause than I to
be demoniacally inclined towards him. Bell told me that Owen says that the
editor mutilated his article in the "Edinburgh Review" (125/4. This is the
only instance, with which we are acquainted, of Owen's acknowledging the
authorship of the "Edinburgh Review" article.), and Bell seemed to think
it was rendered more spiteful by the Editor; perhaps the opposite view is
as probable. Oh, dear! this does not look like becoming more angelic in my
temper!

I had a splendid long talk with Lyell (you may guess how splendid, for he
was many times on his knees, with elbows on the sofa) (125/5. Mr. Darwin
often spoke of Sir Charles Lyell's tendency to take curious attitudes when
excited.) on his work in France: he seems to have done capital work in
making out the age of the celt-bearing beds, but the case gets more and
more complicated. All, however, tends to greater and greater antiquity of
man. The shingle beds seem to be estuary deposits. I called on R. Chambers
at his very nice house in St. John's Wood, and had a very pleasant
half-hour's talk—he is really a capital fellow. He made one good
remark and chuckled over it: that the laymen universally had treated the
controversy on the "Essays and Reviews" as a merely professional subject,
and had not joined in it but had left it to the clergy. I shall be anxious
for your next letter about Henslow. Farewell, with sincere sympathy, my
old friend.

P.S.—We are very much obliged for "London Review." We like reading
much of it, and the science is incomparably better than in the
"Athenaeum." You shall not go on very long sending it, as you will be
ruined by pennies and trouble; but I am under a horrid spell to the
"Athenaeum" and "Gardeners' Chronicle," both of which are intolerably
dull, but I have taken them in for so many years that I cannot give them
up. The "Cottage Gardener," for my purpose, is now far better than the
"Gardeners' Chronicle."

LETTER 126. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, April 25 {1861}.

I received this morning your "Unite de l'Espece Humaine" {published in
1861}, and most sincerely do I thank you for this your very kind present.
I had heard of and been recommended to read your articles, but, not
knowing that they were separately published, did not know how to get them.
So your present is most acceptable, and I am very anxious to see your
views on the whole subject of species and variation; and I am certain to
derive much benefit from your work. In cutting the pages I observe that
you have most kindly mentioned my work several times. My views spread
slowly in England and America; and I am much surprised to find them most
commonly accepted by geologists, next by botanists, and least by
zoologists. I am much pleased that the younger and middle-aged geologists
are coming round, for the arguments from Geology have always seemed
strongest against me. Not one of the older geologists (except Lyell) has
been even shaken in his views of the eternal immutability of species. But
so many of the younger men are turning round with zeal that I look to the
future with some confidence. I am now at work on "Variation under
Domestication," but make slow progress—it is such tedious work
comparing skeletons.

With very sincere thanks for the kind sympathy which you have always shown
me, and with much respect,...

P.S.—I have lately read M. Naudin's paper (126/1. Naudin's paper
("Revue Horticole," 1852) is mentioned in the "Historical Sketch" prefixed
to the later editions of the "Origin" (Edition VI., page xix). Naudin
insisted that species are formed in a manner analogous to the production
of varieties by cultivators, i.e., by selection, "but he does not show how
selection acts under nature." In the "Life and Letters," II., page 246,
Darwin, speaking of Naudin's work, says: "Decaisne seems to think he gives
my whole theory."), but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he
does not show how selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure
writer (126/2. The obscure writer is Patrick Matthew (see the "Historical
Sketch" in the "Origin.") on forest trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most
expressly and clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so
briefly that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his
book.

LETTER 127. TO L. HINDMARSH.

(127/1. The following letter was in reply to one from Mr. Hindmarsh, to
whom Mr. Darwin had written asking for information on the average number
of animals killed each year in the Chillingham herd. The object of the
request was to obtain information which might throw light on the rate of
increase of the cattle relatively to those on the pampas of South America.
Mr. Hindmarsh had contributed a paper "On the Wild Cattle of Chillingham
Park" to the "Annals and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume II., page 274, 1839.)

Down, May 12th {1861}.

I thank you sincerely for your prompt and great kindness, and return the
letter, which I have been very glad to see and have had copied. The
increase is more rapid than I anticipated, but it seems rather
conjectural; I had hoped that in so interesting a case some exact record
had been kept. The number of births, or of calves reared till they
followed their mothers, would perhaps have been the best datum. From Mr.
Hardy's letter I infer that ten must be annually born to make up the
deaths from various causes. In Paraguay, Azara states that in a herd of
4,000, from 1,000 to 1,300 are reared; but then, though they do not kill
calves, but castrate the young bulls, no doubt the oxen would be killed
earlier than the cows, so that the herd would contain probably more of the
female sex than the herd at Chillingham. There is not apparently any
record whether more young bulls are killed than cows. I am surprised that
Lord Tankerville does not have an exact record kept of deaths and sexes
and births: after a dozen years it would be an interesting statistical
record to the naturalist and agriculturist.

(PLATE: PROFESSOR HENSLOW.) LETTER 128. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(128/1. The death of Professor Henslow (who was Sir J.D. Hooker's
father-in-law) occurred on May 16th, 1861.)

Down, May 24th {1861}.

Thanks for your two notes. I am glad that the burial is over, and
sincerely sympathise and can most fully understand your feelings at your
loss.

I grieve to think how little I saw of Henslow for many years. With respect
to a biography of Henslow, I cannot help feeling rather doubtful, on the
principle that a biography could not do him justice. His letters were
generally written in a hurry, and I fear he did not keep any journal or
diary. If there were any vivid materials to describe his life as parish
priest, and manner of managing the poor, it would be very good.

I am never very sanguine on literary projects. I cannot help fearing his
Life might turn out flat. There can hardly be marked incidents to
describe. I sincerely hope that I take a wrong and gloomy view, but I
cannot help fearing—I would rather see no Life than one that would
interest very few. It will be a pleasure and duty in me to consider what I
can recollect; but at present I can think of scarcely anything. The
equability and perfection of Henslow's whole character, I should think,
would make it very difficult for any one to pourtray him. I have been
thinking about Henslow all day a good deal, but the more I think the less
I can think of to write down. It is quite a new style for me to set about,
but I will continue to think what I could say to give any, however
imperfect, notion of him in the old Cambridge days.

Pray give my kindest remembrances to L. Jenyns (128/2. The Rev. Leonard
Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) undertook the "Life" of Henslow, to which
Darwin contributed a characteristic and delightful sketch. See Letter
17.), who is often associated with my recollection of those old happy
days.

LETTER 129. HENRY FAWCETT TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(129/1. It was in reply to the following letter that Darwin wrote to
Fawcett: "You could not possibly have told me anything which would have
given me more satisfaction than what you say about Mr. Mill's opinion.
Until your review appeared I began to think that perhaps I did not
understand at all how to reason scientifically." ("Life of Henry Fawcett,"
by Leslie Stephen, 1885, page 100.)

Bodenham, Salisbury, July 16th {1861}.

I feel that I ought not to have so long delayed writing to thank you for
your very kind letter to me about my article on your book in "Macmillan's
Magazine."

I was particularly anxious to point out that the method of investigation
pursued was in every respect philosophically correct. I was spending an
evening last week with my friend Mr. John Stuart Mill, and I am sure you
will be pleased to hear from such an authority that he considers that your
reasoning throughout is in the most exact accordance with the strict
principles of logic. He also says the method of investigation you have
followed is the only one proper to such a subject.

It is easy for an antagonistic reviewer, when he finds it difficult to
answer your arguments, to attempt to dispose of the whole matter by
uttering some such commonplace as "This is not a Baconian induction."

I expect shortly to be spending a few days in your neighbourhood, and if I
should not be intruding upon you, I should esteem it a great favour if you
will allow me to call on you, and have half an hour's conversation with
you.

As far as I am personally concerned, I am sure I ought to be grateful to
you, for since my accident nothing has given me so much pleasure as the
perusal of your book. Such studies are now a great resource to me.

I declare that you read the reviews on the "Origin" more carefully than I
do. I agree with all your remarks. The point of correlation struck me as
well put, and on varieties growing together; but I have already begun to
put things in train for information on this latter head, on which Bronn
also enlarges. With respect to sexuality, I have often speculated on it,
and have always concluded that we are too ignorant to speculate: no
physiologist can conjecture why the two elements go to form a new being,
and, more than that, why nature strives at uniting the two elements from
two individuals. What I am now working at in my orchids is an admirable
illustration of the law. I should certainly conclude that all sexuality
had descended from one prototype. Do you not underrate the degree of
lowness of organisation in which sexuality occurs—viz., in Hydra,
and still lower in some of the one-celled free confervae which
"conjugate," which good judges (Thwaites) believe is the simplest form of
true sexual generation? (130/1. See Letter 97.) But the whole case is a
mystery.

There is another point on which I have occasionally wished to say a few
words. I believe you think with Asa Gray that I have not allowed enough
for the stream of variation having been guided by a higher power. I have
had lately a good deal of correspondence on this head. Herschel, in his
"Physical Geography" (130/2. "Physical Geography of the Globe," by Sir
John F.W. Herschel, Edinburgh, 1861. On page 12 Herschel writes of the
revelations of Geology pointing to successive submersions and
reconstructions of the continents and fresh races of animals and plants.
He refers to a "great law of change" which has not operated either by a
gradually progressing variation of species, nor by a sudden and total
abolition of one race...The following footnote on page 12 of the "Physical
Geography" was added in January, 1861: "This was written previous to the
publication of Mr. Darwin's work on the "Origin of Species," a work which,
whatever its merit or ingenuity, we cannot, however, consider as having
disproved the view taken in the text. We can no more accept the principle
of arbitrary and casual variation and natural selection as a sufficient
account, per se, of the past and present organic world, than we can
receive the Laputan method of composing books (pushed a outrance) as a
sufficient one of Shakespeare and the "Principia." Equally in either case
an intelligence, guided by a purpose, must be continually in action to
bias the directions of the steps of change—to regulate their amount,
to limit their divergence, and to continue them in a definite course. We
do not believe that Mr. Darwin means to deny the necessity of such
intelligent direction. But it does not, so far as we can see, enter into
the formula of this law, and without it we are unable to conceive how far
the law can have led to the results. On the other hand, we do not mean to
deny that such intelligence may act according to a law (that is to say, on
a preconceived and definite plan). Such law, stated in words, would be no
other than the actual observed law of organic succession; a one more
general, taking that form when applied to our own planet, and including
all the links of the chain which have disappeared. BUT THE ONE LAW IS A
NECESSARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE OTHER, AND OUGHT, IN ALL LOGICAL PROPRIETY, TO
FORM A PART OF ITS ENUNCIATION. Granting this, and with some demur as to
the genesis of man, we are far from disposed to repudiate the view taken
of this mysterious subject in Mr. Darwin's book." The sentence in italics
is no doubt the one referred to in the letter to Lyell. See Letter 243.),
has a sentence with respect to the "Origin," something to the effect that
the higher law of Providential Arrangement should always be stated. But
astronomers do not state that God directs the course of each comet and
planet. The view that each variation has been providentially arranged
seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed
takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of
science. But what makes me most object to Asa Gray's view is the study of
the extreme variability of domestic animals. He who does not suppose that
each variation in the pigeon was providentially caused, by accumulating
which variations, man made a Fantail, cannot, I think, logically argue
that the tail of the woodpecker was formed by variations providentially
ordained. It seems to me that variations in the domestic and wild
conditions are due to unknown causes, and are without purpose, and in so
far accidental; and that they become purposeful only when they are
selected by man for his pleasure, or by what we call Natural Selection in
the struggle for life, and under changing conditions. I do not wish to say
that God did not foresee everything which would ensue; but here comes very
nearly the same sort of wretched imbroglio as between freewill and
preordained necessity. I doubt whether I have made what I think clear; but
certainly A. Gray's notion of the courses of variation having been led
like a stream of water by gravity, seems to me to smash the whole affair.
It reminds me of a Spaniard whom I told I was trying to make out how the
Cordillera was formed; and he answered me that it was useless, for "God
made them." It may be said that God foresaw how they would be made. I
wonder whether Herschel would say that you ought always to give the higher
providential law, and declare that God had ordered all certain changes of
level, that certain mountains should arise. I must think that such views
of Asa Gray and Herschel merely show that the subject in their minds is in
Comte's theological stage of science...

Of course I do not want any answer to my quasi-theological discussion, but
only for you to think of my notions, if you understand them.

I hope to Heaven your long and great labours on your new edition are
drawing to a close.

LETTER 131. TO C. LYELL. Torquay, {August 13th, 1861}.

Very many thanks for the orchids, which have proved extremely useful to me
in two ways I did not anticipate, but were too monstrous (yet of some use)
for my special purpose.

When you come to "Deification" (131/1. See Letter 105, note.), ask
yourself honestly whether what you are thinking applies to the endless
variations of domestic productions, which man accumulates for his mere
fancy or use. No doubt these are all caused by some unknown law, but I
cannot believe they were ordained for any purpose, and if not so ordained
under domesticity, I can see no reason to believe that they were ordained
in a state of nature. Of course it may be said, when you kick a stone, or
a leaf falls from a tree, that it was ordained, before the foundations of
the world were laid, exactly where that stone or leaf should lie. In this
sense the subject has no interest for me.

Once again, many thanks for the orchids; you must let me repay you what
you paid the collector.

LETTER 132. TO C. LYELL.

(132/1. The first paragraph probably refers to the proof-sheets of Lyell's
"Antiquity of Man," but the passage referred to seems not to occur in the
book.)

Torquay, August 21st {1861}.

...I have really no criticism, except a trifling one in pencil near the
end, which I have inserted on account of dominant and important species
generally varying most. You speak of "their views" rather as if you were a
thousand miles away from such wretches, but your concluding paragraph
shows that you are one of the wretches.

I am pleased that you approve of Hutton's review. (132/2. "Some Remarks on
Mr. Darwin's Theory," by F.W. Hutton. "Geologist," Volume IV., page 132
(1861). See Letter 124.) It seemed to me to take a more philosophical view
of the manner of judging the question than any other review. The sentence
you quote from it seems very true, but I do not agree with the theological
conclusion. I think he quotes from Asa Gray, certainly not from me; but I
have neither A. Gray nor "Origin" with me. Indeed, I have over and over
again said in the "Origin" that Natural Selection does nothing without
variability; I have given a whole chapter on laws, and used the strongest
language how ignorant we are on these laws. But I agree that I have
somehow (Hooker says it is owing to my title) not made the great and
manifest importance of previous variability plain enough. Breeders
constantly speak of Selection as the one great means of improvement; but
of course they imply individual differences, and this I should have
thought would have been obvious to all in Natural Selection; but it has
not been so.

I have just said that I cannot agree with "which variations are the
effects of an unknown law, ordained and guided without doubt by an
intelligent cause on a preconceived and definite plan." Will you honestly
tell me (and I should be really much obliged) whether you believe that the
shape of my nose (eheu!) was ordained and "guided by an intelligent
cause?" (132/3. It should be remembered that the shape of his nose nearly
determined Fitz-Roy to reject Darwin as naturalist to H.M.S. "Beagle"
("Life and Letters," I., page 60).) By the selection of analogous and less
differences fanciers make almost generic differences in their pigeons; and
can you see any good reason why the Natural Selection of analogous
individual differences should not make new species? If you say that God
ordained that at some time and place a dozen slight variations should
arise, and that one of them alone should be preserved in the struggle for
life and the other eleven should perish in the first or few first
generations, then the saying seems to me mere verbiage. It comes to merely
saying that everything that is, is ordained.

Let me add another sentence. Why should you or I speak of variation as
having been ordained and guided, more than does an astronomer, in
discussing the fall of a meteoric stone? He would simply say that it was
drawn to our earth by the attraction of gravity, having been displaced in
its course by the action of some quite unknown laws. Would you have him
say that its fall at some particular place and time was "ordained and
guided without doubt by an intelligent cause on a preconceived and
definite plan"? Would you not call this theological pedantry or display? I
believe it is not pedantry in the case of species, simply because their
formation has hitherto been viewed as beyond law; in fact, this branch of
science is still with most people under its theological phase of
development. The conclusion which I always come to after thinking of such
questions is that they are beyond the human intellect; and the less one
thinks on them the better. You may say, Then why trouble me? But I should
very much like to know clearly what you think.

LETTER 133. TO HENRY FAWCETT.

(133/1. The following letter was published in the "Life" of Mr. Fawcett
(1885); we are indebted to Mrs. Fawcett and Messrs. Smith & Elder for
permission to reprint it. See Letter 129.)

September 18th {1861}.

I wondered who had so kindly sent me the newspaper (133/2. The newspaper
sent was the "Manchester Examiner" for September 9th, 1861, containing a
report of Mr. Fawcett's address given before Section D of the British
Association, "On the method of Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of
species," in which the speaker showed that the "method of investigation
pursued by Mr. Darwin in his treatise on the origin of species is in
strict accordance with the principles of logic." The "A" of the letter (as
published in Fawcett's Life) is the late Professor Williamson, who is
reported to have said that "while he would not say that Mr. Darwin's book
had caused him a loss of reputation, he was sure that it had not caused a
gain." The reference to "B" is explained by the report of the late Dr.
Lankester's speech in which he said, "The facts brought forward in support
of the hypothesis had a very different value indeed from that of the
hypothesis...A great naturalist, who was still a friend of Mr. Darwin,
once said to him (Dr. Lankester), 'The mistake is, that Darwin has dealt
with origin. Why did he not put his facts before us, and let them rest?'"
Another speaker, the Rt. Hon. J.R. Napier, remarked: "I am going to speak
closely to the question. If the hypothesis is put forward to contradict
facts, and the averments are contrary to the Word of God, I say that it is
not a logical argument." At this point the chairman, Professor Babington,
wisely interfered, on the ground that the meeting was a scientific one.),
which I was very glad to see; and now I have to thank you sincerely for
allowing me to see your MS. It seems to me very good and sound; though I
am certainly not an impartial judge. You will have done good service in
calling the attention of scientific men to means and laws of
philosophising. As far as I could judge by the papers, your opponents were
unworthy of you. How miserably A. talked of my reputation, as if that had
anything to do with it!...How profoundly ignorant B must be of the very
soul of observation! About thirty years ago there was much talk that
geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember
some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit
and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone
should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it
is to be of any service!

I have returned only lately from a two months' visit to Torquay, which did
my health at the time good; but I am one of those miserable creatures who
are never comfortable for twenty-four hours; and it is clear to me that I
ought to be exterminated. I have been rather idle of late, or, speaking
more strictly, working at some miscellaneous papers, which, however, have
some direct bearing on the subject of species; yet I feel guilty at having
neglected my larger book. But, to me, observing is much better sport than
writing. I fear that I shall have wearied you with this long note.

Pray believe that I feel sincerely grateful that you have taken up the
cudgels in defence of the line of argument in the "Origin;" you will have
benefited the subject.

Many are so fearful of speaking out. A German naturalist came here the
other day; and he tells me that there are many in Germany on our side, but
that all seem fearful of speaking out, and waiting for some one to speak,
and then many will follow. The naturalists seem as timid as young ladies
should be, about their scientific reputation. There is much discussion on
the subject on the Continent, even in quiet Holland; and I had a pamphlet
from Moscow the other day by a man who sticks up famously for the
imperfection of the "Geological Record," but complains that I have sadly
understated the variability of the old fossilised animals! But I must not
run on.

LETTER 134. TO H.W. BATES. Down, September 25th {1861}.

Now for a few words on science. Many thanks for facts on neuters. You
cannot tell how I rejoice that you do not think what I have said on the
subject absurd. Only two persons have even noticed it to me—viz.,
the bitter sneer of Owen in the "Edinburgh Review" (134/1. "Edinburgh
Review," April, 1860, page 525.), and my good friend and supporter, Sir C.
Lyell, who could only screw up courage to say, "Well, you have manfully
faced the difficulty."

What a wonderful case of Volucella of which I had never heard. (134/2.
Volucella is a fly—one of the Syrphidae—supposed to supply a
case of mimicry; this was doubtless the point of interest with Bates. Dr.
Sharp says {"Insects," Part II. (in the Camb. Nat. Hist. series), 1899,
page 500}: "It was formerly assumed that the Volucella larvae lived on the
larvae of the bees, and that the parent flies were providentially endowed
with a bee-like appearance that they might obtain entrance into the bees'
nests without being detected." Dr. Sharp goes on to say that what little
is known on the subject supports the belief that the "presence of the
Volucella in the nests is advantageous to both fly and bee.") I had no
idea such a case occurred in nature; I must get and see specimens in
British Museum. I hope and suppose you will give a good deal of Natural
History in your Travels; every one cares about ants—more notice has
been taken about slave-ants in the "Origin" than of any other passage.

I fully expect to delight in your Travels. Keep to simple style, as in
your excellent letters,—but I beg pardon, I am again advising.

What a capital paper yours will be on mimetic resemblances! You will make
quite a new subject of it. I had thought of such cases as a difficulty;
and once, when corresponding with Dr. Collingwood, I thought of your
explanation; but I drove it from my mind, for I felt that I had not
knowledge to judge one way or the other. Dr C., I think, states that the
mimetic forms inhabit the same country, but I did not know whether to
believe him. What wonderful cases yours seem to be! Could you not give a
few woodcuts in your Travels to illustrate this? I am tired with a hard
day's work, so no more, except to give my sincere thanks and hearty wishes
for the success of your Travels.

LETTER 135. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 18th {1862}.

Your letter discusses lots of interesting subjects, and I am very glad you
have sent for your letter to Bates. (135/1. Published in Mr. Clodd's
memoir of Bates in the "Naturalist on the Amazons," 1892, page l.) What do
you mean by "individual plants"? (135/2. In a letter to Mr. Darwin dated
March 17th, 1862, Sir J.D. Hooker had discussed a supposed difference
between animals and plants, "inasmuch as the individual animal is
certainly changed materially by external conditions, the latter (I think)
never, except in such a coarse way as stunting or enlarging—e.g. no
increase of cold on the spot, or change of individual plant from hot to
cold, will induce said individual plant to get more woolly covering; but I
suppose a series of cold seasons would bring about such a change in an
individual quadruped, just as rowing will harden hands, etc.") I fancied a
bud lived only a year, and you could hardly expect any change in that
time; but if you call a tree or plant an individual, you have sporting
buds. Perhaps you mean that the whole tree does not change. Tulips, in
"breaking," change. Fruit seems certainly affected by the stock. I think I
have (135/3. See note, Letter 16.) got cases of slight change in alpine
plants transplanted. All these subjects have rather gone out of my head
owing to orchids, but I shall soon have to enter on them in earnest when I
come again to my volume on variation under domestication.

...In the lifetime of an animal you would, I think, find it very difficult
to show effects of external condition on animals more than shade and
light, good and bad soil, produce on a plant.

You speak of "an inherent tendency to vary wholly independent of physical
conditions"! This is a very simple way of putting the case (as Dr. Prosper
Lucas also puts it) (135/4. Prosper Lucas, the author of "Traite
philosophique et physiologique de l'heredite naturelle dans les etats de
sante et de maladie du systeme nerveux": 2 volumes, Paris, 1847-50.): but
two great classes of facts make me think that all variability is due to
change in the conditions of life: firstly, that there is more variability
and more monstrosities (and these graduate into each other) under
unnatural domestic conditions than under nature; and, secondly, that
changed conditions affect in an especial manner the reproductive organs—those
organs which are to produce a new being. But why one seedling out of
thousands presents some new character transcends the wildest powers of
conjecture. It was in this sense that I spoke of "climate," etc., possibly
producing without selection a hooked seed, or any not great variation.
(135/5. This statement probably occurs in a letter, and not in Darwin's
published works.)

I have for years and years been fighting with myself not to attribute too
much to Natural Selection—to attribute something to direct action of
conditions; and perhaps I have too much conquered my tendency to lay
hardly any stress on conditions of life.

I am not shaken about "saltus" (135/6. Sir Joseph had written, March 17th,
1862: "Huxley is rather disposed to think you have overlooked saltus, but
I am not sure that he is right—saltus quoad individuals is not
saltus quoad species—as I pointed out in the Begonia case, though
perhaps that was rather special pleading in the present state of science."
For the Begonia case, see "Life and Letters," II., page 275, also letter
110, page 166.), I did not write without going pretty carefully into all
the cases of normal structure in animals resembling monstrosities which
appear per saltus.

LETTER 136. TO J.D. HOOKER. 26th {March, 1862}.

Thanks also for your own (136/1. See note in Letter 135.) and Bates'
letter now returned. They are both excellent; you have, I think, said all
that can be said against direct effects of conditions, and capitally put.
But I still stick to my own and Bates' side. Nevertheless I am pleased to
attribute little to conditions, and I wish I had done what you suggest—started
on the fundamental principle of variation being an innate principle, and
afterwards made a few remarks showing that hereafter, perhaps, this
principle would be explicable. Whenever my book on poultry, pigeons,
ducks, and rabbits is published, with all the measurements and weighings
of bones, I think you will see that "use and disuse" at least have some
effect. I do not believe in perfect reversion. I rather demur to your
doctrine of "centrifugal variation." (136/2. The "doctrine of centrifugal
variation" is given in Sir J.D. Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora
of Tasmania" (Part III. of the Botany of the Antarctic Expedition), 1859,
page viii. In paragraph 10 the author writes: "The tendency of varieties,
both in nature and under cultivation...is rather to depart more and more
widely from the original type than to revert to it." In Sir Joseph's
letter to Bates (loc. cit., page lii) he wrote: "Darwin also believes in
some reversion to type which is opposed to my view of variation." It may
be noted in this connection that Mr. Galton has shown reason to believe in
a centripetal tendency in variation (to use Hooker's phraseology) which is
not identical with the reversion of cultivated plants to their ancestors,
the case to which Hooker apparently refers. See "Natural Inheritance," by
F. Galton, 1889.) I suppose you do not agree with or do not remember my
doctrine of the good of diversification (136/3. Darwin usually used the
word "divergence" in this connection.); this seems to me amply to account
for variation being centrifugal—if you forget it, look at this
discussion (page 117 of 3rd edition), it was the best point which,
according to my notions, I made out, and it has always pleased me. It is
really curiously satisfactory to me to see so able a man as Bates (and
yourself) believing more fully in Natural Selection than I think I even do
myself. (136/4. This refers to a very interesting passage in Hooker's
letter to Bates (loc. cit., page liii): "I am sure that with you, as with
me, the more you think the less occasion you will see for anything but
time and natural selection to effect change; and that this view is the
simplest and clearest in the present state of science is one advantage, at
any rate. Indeed, I think that it is, in the present state of the inquiry,
the legitimate position to take up; it is time enough to bother our heads
with the secondary cause when there is some evidence of it or some demand
for it—at present I do not see one or the other, and so feel
inclined to renounce any other for the present.") By the way, I always
boast to you, and so I think Owen will be wrong that my book will be
forgotten in ten years, for a French edition is now going through the
press and a second German edition wanted. Your long letter to Bates has
set my head working, and makes me repent of the nine months spent on
orchids; though I know not why I should not have amused myself on them as
well as slaving on bones of ducks and pigeons, etc. The orchids have been
splendid sport, though at present I am fearfully sick of them.

I enclose a waste copy of woodcut of Mormodes ignea; I wish you had a
plant at Kew, for I am sure its wonderful mechanism and structure would
amuse you. Is it not curious the way the labellum sits on the top of the
column?—here insects alight and are beautifully shot, when they
touch a certain sensitive point, by the pollinia.

How kindly you have helped me in my work! Farewell, my dear old fellow.

LETTER 137. TO H.W. BATES. Down, May 4th {1862}.

Hearty thanks for your most interesting letter and three very valuable
extracts. I am very glad that you have been looking at the South Temperate
insects. I wish that the materials in the British Museum had been richer;
but I should think the case of the South American Carabi, supported by
some other case, would be worth a paper. To us who theorise I am sure the
case is very important. Do the South American Carabi differ more from the
other species than do, for instance, the Siberian and European and North
American and Himalayan (if the genus exists there)? If they do, I entirely
agree with you that the difference would be too great to account for by
the recent Glacial period. I agree, also, with you in utterly rejecting an
independent origin for these Carabi. There is a difficulty, as far as I
know, in our ignorance whether insects change quickly in time; you could
judge of this by knowing how far closely allied coleoptera generally have
much restricted ranges, for this almost implies rapid change. What a
curious case is offered by land-shells, which become modified in every
sub-district, and have yet retained the same general structure from very
remote geological periods! When working at the Glacial period, I remember
feeling much surprised how few birds, no mammals, and very few
sea-mollusca seemed to have crossed, or deeply entered, the inter-tropical
regions during the cold period. Insects, from all you say, seem to come
under the same category. Plants seem to migrate more readily than animals.
Do not underrate the length of Glacial period: Forbes used to argue that
it was equivalent to the whole of the Pleistocene period in the warmer
latitudes. I believe, with you, that we shall be driven to an older
Glacial period.

I am very sorry to hear about the British Museum; it would be hopeless to
contend against any one supported by Owen. Perhaps another chance might
occur before very long. How would it be to speak to Owen as soon as your
own mind is made up? From what I have heard, since talking to you, I fear
the strongest personal interest with a Minister is requisite for a
pension.

Farewell, and may success attend the acerrimo pro-pugnatori.

P.S. I deeply wish you could find some situation in which you could give
your time to science; it would be a great thing for science and for
yourself.

LETTER 138. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, July 11th {1862}.

I thank you cordially for so kindly and promptly answering my questions. I
will quote some of your remarks. The case seems to me of some importance
with reference to my heretical notions, for it shows how larvae might be
modified. I shall not publish, I daresay, for a year, for much time is
expended in experiments. If within this time you should acquire any fresh
information on the similarity of the moths of distinct races, and would
allow me to quote any facts on your authority, I should feel very
grateful.

I thank you for your great kindness with respect to the translation of the
"Origin;" it is very liberal in you, as we differ to a considerable
degree. I have been atrociously abused by my religious countrymen; but as
I live an independent life in the country, it does not in the least hurt
me in any way, except indeed when the abuse comes from an old friend like
Professor Owen, who abuses me and then advances the doctrine that all
birds are probably descended from one parent.

I wish the translator (138/1. Mdlle. Royer, who translated the first
French edition of the "Origin.') had known more of Natural History; she
must be a clever but singular lady, but I never heard of her till she
proposed to translate my book.

LETTER 139. TO ASA GRAY. Down, July 23rd {1862}.

I received several days ago two large packets, but have as yet read only
your letter; for we have been in fearful distress, and I could attend to
nothing. Our poor boy had the rare case of second rash and sore throat...;
and, as if this was not enough, a most serious attack of erysipelas, with
typhoid symptoms. I despaired of his life; but this evening he has eaten
one mouthful, and I think has passed the crisis. He has lived on port wine
every three-quarters of an hour, day and night. This evening, to our
astonishment, he asked whether his stamps were safe, and I told him of one
sent by you, and that he should see it to-morrow. He answered, "I should
awfully like to see it now"; so with difficulty he opened his eyelids and
glanced at it, and, with a sigh of satisfaction, said, "All right."
Children are one's greatest happiness, but often and often a still greater
misery. A man of science ought to have none—perhaps not a wife; for
then there would be nothing in this wide world worth caring for, and a man
might (whether he could is another question) work away like a Trojan. I
hope in a few days to get my brains in order, and then I will pick out all
your orchid letters, and return them in hopes of your making use of
them...

Of all the carpenters for knocking the right nail on the head, you are the
very best; no one else has perceived that my chief interest in my orchid
book has been that it was a "flank movement" on the enemy. I live in such
solitude that I hear nothing, and have no idea to what you allude about
Bentham and the orchids and species. But I must enquire.

By the way, one of my chief enemies (the sole one who has annoyed me),
namely Owen, I hear has been lecturing on birds; and admits that all have
descended from one, and advances as his own idea that the oceanic wingless
birds have lost their wings by gradual disuse. He never alludes to me, or
only with bitter sneers, and coupled with Buffon and the "Vestiges."

Well, it has been an amusement to me this first evening, scribbling as
egotistically as usual about myself and my doings; so you must forgive me,
as I know well your kind heart will do. I have managed to skim the
newspaper, but had not heart to read all the bloody details. Good God!
What will the end be? Perhaps we are too despondent here; but I must think
you are too hopeful on your side of the water. I never believed the
"canards" of the army of the Potomac having capitulated. My good dear wife
and self are come to wish for peace at any price. Good night, my good
friend. I will scribble on no more.

One more word. I should like to hear what you think about what I say in
the last chapter of the orchid book on the meaning and cause of the
endless diversity of means for the same general purpose. It bears on
design, that endless question. Good night, good night!

You say that the Bishop and Owen will be down on you (140/1. This refers
to the "Antiquity of Man," which was published in 1863.): the latter
hardly can, for I was assured that Owen, in his lectures this spring,
advanced as a new idea that wingless birds had lost their wings by disuse.
(140/2. The first paragraph of this letter was published in "Life and
Letters," II., pages 387, 388.) Also that magpies stole spoons, etc., from
a remnant of some instinct like that of the bower-bird, which ornaments
its playing passage with pretty feathers. Indeed, I am told that he hinted
plainly that all birds are descended from one. What an unblushing man he
must be to lecture thus after abusing me so, and never to have openly
retracted, or alluded to my book!

Many thanks for your pleasant note in return for all my stupid trouble. I
did not fully appreciate your insect-diving case (141/1. "On two Aquatic
Hymenoptera, one of which uses its Wings in Swimming." By John Lubbock.
"Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., 1864, pages 135-42.) {Read May 7th,
1863.} In this paper Lubbock describes a new species of Polynema—P.
natans—which swims by means of its wings, and is capable of living
under water for several hours; the other species, referred to a new genus
Prestwichia, lives under water, holds its wings motionless and uses its
legs as oars.) before your last note, nor had I any idea that the fact was
new, though new to me. It is really very interesting. Of course you will
publish an account of it. You will then say whether the insect can fly
well through the air. (141/2. In describing the habits of Polynema,
Lubbock writes, "I was unfortunately unable to ascertain whether they
could fly" (loc. cit., page 137).) My wife asked, "How did he find that it
stayed four hours under water without breathing?" I answered at once:
"Mrs. Lubbock sat four hours watching." I wonder whether I am right.

I long to be at home and at steady work, and I hope we may be in another
month. I fear it is hopeless my coming to you, for I am squashier than
ever, but hope two shower-baths a day will give me a little strength, so
that you will, I hope, come to us. It is an age since I have seen you or
any scientific friend.

I heard from Lyell the other day in the Isle of Wight, and from Hooker in
Scotland. About Huxley I know nothing, but I hope his book progresses, for
I shall be very curious to see it. (141/3. "Man's Place in Nature."
London, 1863.)

I do nothing here except occasionally look at a few flowers, and there are
very few here, for the country is wonderfully barren.

See what it is to be well trained. Horace said to me yesterday, "If every
one would kill adders they would come to sting less." I answered: "Of
course they would, for there would be fewer." He replied indignantly: "I
did not mean that; but the timid adders which run away would be saved, and
in time would never sting at all." Natural selection of cowards!

LETTER 142. H. FALCONER TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(142/1. This refers to the MS. of Falconer's paper "On the American Fossil
Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.),"
published in the "Natural History Review," January, 1863, page 43. The
section dealing with the bearing of his facts on Darwin's views is at page
77. He insists strongly (page 78) on the "persistence and uniformity of
the characters of the molar teeth in the earliest known mammoth, and his
most modern successor." Nevertheless, he adds that the "inferences I draw
from these facts are not opposed to one of the leading propositions of
Darwin's theory." These admissions were the more satisfactory since, as
Falconer points out (page 77), "I have been included by him in the
category of those who have vehemently maintained the persistence of
specific characters.")

21, Park Crescent, Portland Place, N.W., September 24th {1862}.

Do not be frightened at the enclosure. I wish to set myself right by you
before I go to press. I am bringing out a heavy memoir on elephants—an
omnium gatherum affair, with observations on the fossil and recent
species. One section is devoted to the persistence in time of the specific
characters of the mammoth. I trace him from before the Glacial period,
through it and after it, unchangeable and unchanged as far as the organs
of digestion (teeth) and locomotion are concerned. Now, the Glacial period
was no joke: it would have made ducks and drakes of your dear pigeons and
doves.

With all my shortcomings, I have such a sincere and affectionate regard
for you and such admiration of your work, that I should be pained to find
that I had expressed my honest convictions in a way that would be open to
any objection by you. The reasoning may be very stupid, but I believe that
the observation is sound. Will you, therefore, look over the few pages
which I have sent, and tell me whether you find any flaw, or whether you
think I should change the form of expression? You have been so
unhandsomely and uncandidly dealt with by a friend of yours and mine that
I should be sorry to find myself in the position of an opponent to you,
and more particularly with the chance of making a fool of myself.

I met your brother yesterday, who tells me you are coming to town. I hope
you will give me a hail. I long for a jaw with you, and have much to speak
to you about.

You will have seen the eclaircissement about the Eocene monkeys of
England. By a touch of the conjuring wand they have been metamorphosed—a
la Darwin—into Hyracotherian pigs. (142/2. "On the Hyracotherian
Character of the Lower Molars of the supposed Macacus from the Eocene Sand
of Kyson, Suffolk." "Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume X., 1862, page 240. In
this note Owen stated that the teeth which he had named Macacus ("Ann.
Mag." 1840, page 191) most probably belonged to Hyracotherium cuniculus.
See "A Catalogue of British Fossil Vertebrata," A.S. Woodward and C.D.
Sherborn, 1890, under Hyracotherium, page 356; also Zittel's "Handbuch der
Palaeontologie" Abth. I., Bd. IV., Leipzig, 1891-93, page 703.) Would you
believe it? This even is a gross blunder. They are not pigs.

LETTER 143. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, October 1st {1862}.

On my return home yesterday I found your letter and MS., which I have read
with extreme interest. Your note and every word in your paper are
expressed with the same kind feeling which I have experienced from you
ever since I have had the happiness of knowing you. I value scientific
praise, but I value incomparably higher such kind feeling as yours. There
is not a single word in your paper to which I could possibly object: I
should be mad to do so; its only fault is perhaps its too great kindness.
Your case seems the most striking one which I have met with of the
persistence of specific characters. It is very much the more striking as
it relates to the molar teeth, which differ so much in the species of the
genus, and in which consequently I should have expected variation. As I
read on I felt not a little dumbfounded, and thought to myself that
whenever I came to this subject I should have to be savage against myself;
and I wondered how savage you would be. I trembled a little. My only hope
was that something could be made out of the bog N. American forms, which
you rank as a geographical race; and possibly hereafter out of the
Sicilian species. Guess, then, my satisfaction when I found that you
yourself made a loophole (143/1. This perhaps refers to a passage ("N.H.
Review," 1863, page 79) in which Falconer allows the existence of
intermediate forms along certain possible lines of descent. Falconer's
reference to the Sicilian elephants is in a note on page 78; the
bog-elephant is mentioned on page 79.), which I never, of course, could
have guessed at; and imagine my still greater satisfaction at your
expressing yourself as an unbeliever in the eternal immutability of
species. Your final remarks on my work are too generous, but have given me
not a little pleasure. As for criticisms, I have only small ones. When you
speak of "moderate range of variation" I cannot but think that you ought
to remind your readers (though I daresay previously done) what the amount
is, including the case of the American bog-mammoth. You speak of these
animals as having been exposed to a vast range of climatal changes from
before to after the Glacial period. I should have thought, from analogy of
sea-shells, that by migration (or local extinction when migration not
possible) these animals might and would have kept under nearly the same
climate.

A rather more important consideration, as it seems to me, is that the
whole proboscidean group may, I presume, be looked at as verging towards
extinction: anyhow, the extinction has been complete as far as Europe and
America are concerned. Numerous considerations and facts have led me in
the "Origin" to conclude that it is the flourishing or dominant members of
each order which generally give rise to new races, sub-species, and
species; and under this point of view I am not at all surprised at the
constancy of your species. This leads me to remark that the sentence at
the bottom of page {80} is not applicable to my views (143/2. See Falconer
at the bottom of page 80: it is the old difficulty—how can
variability co-exist with persistence of type? In our copy of the letter
the passage is given as occurring on page 60, a slip of the pen for page
80.), though quite applicable to those who attribute modification to the
direct action of the conditions of life. An elephant might be more
individually variable than any known quadruped (from the effects of the
conditions of life or other innate unknown causes), but if these
variations did not aid the animal in better resisting all hostile
influences, and therefore making it increase in numbers, there would be no
tendency to the preservation and accumulation of such variations—i.e.
to the formation of a new race. As the proboscidean group seems to be from
utterly unknown causes a failing group in many parts of the world, I
should not have anticipated the formation of new races.

You make important remarks versus Natural Selection, and you will perhaps
be surprised that I do to a large extent agree with you. I could show you
many passages, written as strongly as I could in the "Origin," declaring
that Natural Selection can do nothing without previous variability; and I
have tried to put equally strongly that variability is governed by many
laws, mostly quite unknown. My title deceives people, and I wish I had
made it rather different. Your phyllotaxis (143/3. Falconer, page 80: "The
law of Phyllotaxis...is nearly as constant in its manifestation as any of
the physical laws connected with the material world.") will serve as
example, for I quite agree that the spiral arrangement of a certain number
of whorls of leaves (however that may have primordially arisen, and
whether quite as invariable as you state), governs the limits of
variability, and therefore governs what Natural Selection can do. Let me
explain how it arose that I laid so much stress on Natural Selection, and
I still think justly. I came to think from geographical distribution,
etc., etc., that species probably change; but for years I was stopped dead
by my utter incapability of seeing how every part of each creature (a
woodpecker or swallow, for instance) had become adapted to its conditions
of life. This seemed to me, and does still seem, the problem to solve; and
I think Natural Selection solves it, as artificial selection solves the
adaptation of domestic races for man's use. But I suspect that you mean
something further,—that there is some unknown law of evolution by
which species necessarily change; and if this be so, I cannot agree. This,
however, is too large a question even for so unreasonably long a letter as
this. Nevertheless, just to explain by mere valueless conjectures how I
imagine the teeth of your elephants change, I should look at the change as
indirectly resulting from changes in the form of the jaws, or from the
development of tusks, or in the case of the primigenius even from
correlation with the woolly covering; in all cases Natural Selection
checking the variation. If, indeed, an elephant would succeed better by
feeding on some new kinds of food, then any variation of any kind in the
teeth which favoured their grinding power would be preserved. Now, I can
fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return to
your concluding sentence: far from being surprised, I look at it as
absolutely certain that very much in the "Origin" will be proved rubbish;
but I expect and hope that the framework will stand. (143/4. Falconer,
page 80: "He {Darwin} has laid the foundations of a great edifice: but he
need not be surprised if, in the progress of erection, the superstructure
is altered by his successors...")

I had hoped to have called on you on Monday evening, but was quite knocked
up. I saw Lyell yesterday morning. He was very curious about your views,
and as I had to write to him this morning I could not help telling him a
few words on your views. I suppose you are tired of the "Origin," and will
never read it again; otherwise I should like you to have the third
edition, and would gladly send it rather than you should look at the first
or second edition. With cordial thanks for your generous kindness.

I am greatly relieved by your letter this morning about my Arctic essay,
for I had been conjuring up some egregious blunder (like the granitic
plains of Patagonia).. Certes, after what you have told me of Dawson, he
will not like the letter I wrote to him days ago, in which I told him that
it was impossible to entertain a strong opinion against the Darwinian
hypothesis without its giving rise to a mental twist when viewing matters
in which that hypothesis was or might be involved. I told him I felt that
this was so with me when I opposed you, and that all minds are subject to
such obliquities!—the Lord help me, and this to an LL.D. and
Principal of a College! I proceeded to discuss his Geology with the
effrontery of a novice; and, thank God, I urged the very argument of your
letter about evidence of subsidence—viz., not all submerged at once,
and glacial action being subaerial and not oceanic. Your letter hence was
a relief, for I felt I was hardly strong enough to have launched out as I
did to a professed geologist.

(144/1. {On the subject of the above letter, see one of earlier date by
Sir J.D. Hooker (November 2nd, 1862) given in the present work (Letter
354) with Darwin's reply (Letter 355).})

LETTER 145. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 14th {1862}.

I have read your paper (145/1. "On the disputed Affinity of the Mammalian
Genus Plagiaulax, from the Purbeck beds."—"Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc."
Volume XVIII., page 348, 1862.) with extreme interest, and I thank you for
sending it, though I should certainly have carefully read it, or anything
with your name, in the Journal. It seems to me a masterpiece of close
reasoning: although, of course, not a judge of such subjects, I cannot
feel any doubt that it is conclusive. Will Owen answer you? I expect that
from his arrogant view of his own position he will not answer. Your paper
is dreadfully severe on him, but perfectly courteous, and polished as the
finest dagger. How kind you are towards me: your first sentence (145/2.
"One of the most accurate observers and original thinkers of our time has
discoursed with emphatic eloquence on the Imperfection of the Geological
Record.") has pleased me more than perhaps it ought to do, if I had any
modesty in my composition. By the way, after reading the first whole
paragraph, I re-read it, not for matter, but for style; and then it
suddenly occurred to me that a certain man once said to me, when I urged
him to publish some of his miscellaneous wealth of knowledge, "Oh, he
could not write,—he hated it," etc. You false man, never say that to
me again. Your incidental remark on the remarkable specialisation of
Plagiaulax (145/3. "If Plagiaulax be regarded through the medium of the
view advocated with such power by Darwin, through what a number of
intermediate forms must not the genus have passed before it attained the
specialised condition in which the fossils come before us!") (which has
stuck in my gizzard ever since I read your first paper) as bearing on the
number of preceding forms, is quite new to me, and, of course, is in
accordance to my notions a most impressive argument. I was also glad to be
reminded of teeth of camel and tarsal bones. (145/4. Op. cit. page 353. A
reference to Cuvier's instance "of the secret relation between the upper
canine-shaped incisors of the camel and the bones of the tarsus.") Descent
from an intermediate form, Ahem!

Well, all I can say is that I have not been for a long time more
interested with a paper than with yours. It gives me a demoniacal chuckle
to think of Owen's pleasant countenance when he reads it.

I have not been in London since the end of September; when I do come I
will beat up your quarters if I possibly can; but I do not know what has
come over me. I am worse than ever in bearing any excitement. Even talking
of an evening for less than two hours has twice recently brought on such
violent vomiting and trembling that I dread coming up to London. I hear
that you came out strong at Cambridge (145/5. Prof. Owen, in a
communication to the British Association at Cambridge (1862) "On a tooth
of Mastodon from the Tertiary marls, near Shanghai," brought forward the
case of the Australian Mastodon as a proof of the remarkable geographical
distribution of the Proboscidia. In a subsequent discussion he frankly
abandoned it, in consequence of the doubts then urged regarding its
authenticity. (See footnote, page 101, in Falconer's paper "On the
American Fossil Elephant," "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863.)), and am heartily
glad you attacked the Australian Mastodon. I never did or could believe in
him. I wish you would read my little Primula paper in the "Linnean
Journal," Volume VI. Botany (No. 22), page 77 (I have no copy which I can
spare), as I think there is a good chance that you may have observed
similar cases. This is my real hobby-horse at present. I have re-tested
this summer the functional difference of the two forms in Primula, and
find all strictly accurate. If you should know of any cases analogous,
pray inform me. Farewell, my good and kind friend.

LETTER 146. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(146/1. The following letter is interesting in connection with a letter
addressed to Sir J.D. Hooker, March 26th, 1862, No. 136, where the value
of Natural Selection is stated more strongly by Sir Joseph than by Darwin.
It is unfortunate that Sir Joseph's letter, to which this is a reply, has
not been found.)

Down, November 20th {1862}.

Your last letter has interested me to an extraordinary degree, and your
truly parsonic advice, "some other wise and discreet person," etc., etc.,
amused us not a little. I will put a concrete case to show what I think A.
Gray believes about crossing and what I believe. If 1,000 pigeons were
bred together in a cage for 10,000 years their number not being allowed to
increase by chance killing, then from mutual intercrossing no varieties
would arise; but, if each pigeon were a self-fertilising hermaphrodite, a
multitude of varieties would arise. This, I believe, is the common effect
of crossing, viz., the obliteration of incipient varieties. I do not deny
that when two marked varieties have been produced, their crossing will
produce a third or more intermediate varieties. Possibly, or probably,
with domestic varieties, with a strong tendency to vary, the act of
crossing tends to give rise to new characters; and thus a third or more
races, not strictly intermediate, may be produced. But there is heavy
evidence against new characters arising from crossing wild forms; only
intermediate races are then produced. Now, do you agree thus far? if not,
it is no use arguing; we must come to swearing, and I am convinced I can
swear harder than you, therefore I am right. Q.E.D.

If the number of 1,000 pigeons were prevented increasing not by chance
killing, but by, say, all the shorter-beaked birds being killed, then the
WHOLE body would come to have longer beaks. Do you agree?

Thirdly, if 1,000 pigeons were kept in a hot country, and another 1,000 in
a cold country, and fed on different food, and confined in different-size
aviary, and kept constant in number by chance killing, then I should
expect as rather probable that after 10,000 years the two bodies would
differ slightly in size, colour, and perhaps other trifling characters;
this I should call the direct action of physical conditions. By this
action I wish to imply that the innate vital forces are somehow led to act
rather differently in the two cases, just as heat will allow or cause two
elements to combine, which otherwise would not have combined. I should be
especially obliged if you would tell me what you think on this head.

But the part of your letter which fairly pitched me head over heels with
astonishment, is that where you state that every single difference which
we see might have occurred without any selection. I do and have always
fully agreed; but you have got right round the subject, and viewed it from
an entirely opposite and new side, and when you took me there I was
astounded. When I say I agree, I must make the proviso, that under your
view, as now, each form long remains adapted to certain fixed conditions,
and that the conditions of life are in the long run changeable; and
second, which is more important, that each individual form is a
self-fertilising hermaphrodite, so that each hair-breadth variation is not
lost by intercrossing. Your manner of putting the case would be even more
striking than it is if the mind could grapple with such numbers—it
is grappling with eternity—think of each of a thousand seeds
bringing forth its plant, and then each a thousand. A globe stretching to
the furthest fixed star would very soon be covered. I cannot even grapple
with the idea, even with races of dogs, cattle, pigeons, or fowls; and
here all admit and see the accurate strictness of your illustration.

Such men as you and Lyell thinking that I make too much of a Deus of
Natural Selection is a conclusive argument against me. Yet I hardly know
how I could have put in, in all parts of my book, stronger sentences. The
title, as you once pointed out, might have been better. No one ever
objects to agriculturalists using the strongest language about their
selection, yet every breeder knows that he does not produce the
modification which he selects. My enormous difficulty for years was to
understand adaptation, and this made me, I cannot but think, rightly,
insist so much on Natural Selection. God forgive me for writing at such
length; but you cannot tell how much your letter has interested me, and
how important it is for me with my present book in hand to try and get
clear ideas. Do think a bit about what is meant by direct action of
physical conditions. I do not mean whether they act; my facts will throw
some light on this. I am collecting all cases of bud-variations, in
contradistinction to seed-variations (do you like this term, for what some
gardeners call "sports"?); these eliminate all effects of crossing. Pray
remember how much I value your opinion as the clearest and most original I
ever get.

I see plainly that Welwitschia (146/2. Sir Joseph's great paper on
Welwitschia mirabilis was published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." 1863.) will
be a case of Barnacles.

I have another plant to beg, but I write on separate paper as more
convenient for you to keep. I meant to have said before, as an excuse for
asking for so much from Kew, that I have now lost TWO seasons, by accursed
nurserymen not having right plants, and sending me the wrong instead of
saying that they did not possess.

LETTER 147. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 24th {November, 1862}.

I have just received enclosed for you, and I have thought that you would
like to read the latter half of A. Gray's letter to me, as it is political
and nearly as mad as ever in our English eyes. You will see how the loss
of the power of bullying is in fact the sore loss to the men of the North
from disunion.

I return with thanks Bates' letter, which I was glad to see. It was very
good of you writing to him, for he is evidently a man who wants
encouragement. I have now finished his paper (but have read nothing else
in the volume); it seems to me admirable. To my mind the act of
segregation of varieties into species was never so plainly brought
forward, and there are heaps of capital miscellaneous observations.

I hardly know why I am a little sorry, but my present work is leading me
to believe rather more in the direct action of physical conditions. I
presume I regret it, because it lessens the glory of Natural Selection,
and is so confoundedly doubtful. Perhaps I shall change again when I get
all my facts under one point of view, and a pretty hard job this will be.
(147/1. This paragraph was published in "Life and Letters," II., page 390.
It is not clear why a belief in "direct action" should diminish the glory
of Natural Selection, since the changes so produced must, like any other
variations, pass through the ordeal of the survival of the fittest. On the
whole question of direct action see Mr. Adam Sedgwick's "Presidential
Address to the Zoological Section of the British Association," 1899.)

LETTER 148. TO H.W. BATES. Down, November 25th {1862?}.

I should think it was not necessary to get a written agreement. (148/1.
Mr. Bates' book, "A Naturalist on the Amazons," was published in 1863.) I
have never had one from Murray. I suppose you have a letter with terms; if
not, I should think you had better ask for one to prevent
misunderstandings. I think Sir C. Lyell told me he had not any formal
agreements. I am heartily glad to hear that your book is progressing.
Could you find me some place, even a footnote (though these are in nine
cases out of ten objectionable), where you could state, as fully as your
materials permit, all the facts about similar varieties pairing,—at
a guess how many you caught, and how many now in your collection? I look
at this fact as very important; if not in your book, put it somewhere
else, or let me have cases.

I entirely agree with you on the enormous advantage of thoroughly studying
one group.

I really have no criticism to make. (148/2. Mr. Bates' paper on mimetic
butterflies was read before the Linnean Society, November 21st, 1861, and
published in the "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXIII., 1862, page 495, under the
title of "Contributions to an Insect Fauna of the Amazon Valley.") Style
seems to me very good and clear; but I much regret that in the title or
opening passage you did not blow a loud trumpet about what you were going
to show. Perhaps the paper would have been better more divided into
sections with headings. Perhaps you might have given somewhere rather more
of a summary on the progress of segregation of varieties, and not referred
your readers to the descriptive part, excepting such readers as wanted
minute detail. But these are trifles: I consider your paper as a most
admirable production in every way. Whenever I come to variation under
natural conditions (my head for months has been exclusively occupied with
domestic varieties), I shall have to study and re-study your paper, and no
doubt shall then have to plague you with questions. I am heartily glad to
hear that you are well. I have been compelled to write in a hurry; so
excuse me.

LETTER 149. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 7th {1862}.

I was on the point of adding to an order to Williams & Norgate for
your Lectures (149/1. "A Course of Six Lectures to Working Men," published
in six pamphlets by Hardwicke, and later as a book. See Letter 156.) when
they arrived, and much obliged I am. I have read them with interest, and
they seem to me very good for this purpose and capitally written, as is
everything which you write. I suppose every book nowadays requires some
pushing, so that if you do not wish these lectures to be extensively
circulated, I suppose they will not; otherwise I should think they would
do good and spread a taste for the natural sciences. Anyhow, I have liked
them; but I get more and more, I am sorry to say, to care for nothing but
Natural History; and chiefly, as you once said, for the mere species
question. I think I liked No. III. the best of all. I have often said and
thought that the process of scientific discovery was identical with
everyday thought, only with more care; but I never succeeded in putting
the case to myself with one-tenth of the clearness with which you have
done. I think your second geological section will puzzle your
non-scientific readers; anyhow, it has puzzled me, and with the strong
middle line, which must represent either a line of stratification or some
great mineralogical change, I cannot conceive how your statement can hold
good.

I am very glad to hear of your "three-year-old" vigour {?}; but I fear,
with all your multifarious work, that your book on Man will necessarily be
delayed. You bad man; you say not a word about Mrs. Huxley, of whom my
wife and self are always truly anxious to hear.

P.S. I see in the "Cornhill Magazine" a notice of a work by Cohn, which
apparently is important, on the contractile tissue of plants. (149/2.
"Ueber contractile Gewebe im Pflanzenreiche." "Abhand. der Schlesischen
Gesellschaft fur vaterlandische Cultur," Heft I., 1861.) You ought to have
it reviewed. I have ordered it, and must try and make out, if I can, some
of the accursed german, for I am much interested in the subject, and
experimented a little on it this summer, and came to the conclusion that
plants must contain some substance most closely analogous to the supposed
diffused nervous matter in the lower animals; or as, I presume, it would
be more accurate to say with Cohn, that they have contractile tissue.

Lecture VI., page 151, line 7 from top—wetting FEET or bodies? (Miss
Henrietta Darwin's criticism.) (149/3. Lecture VI., page 151: Lamarck
"said, for example, that the short-legged birds, which live on fish, had
been converted into the long-legged waders by desiring to get the fish
without wetting their feet."

Their criticisms on Lectures IV. and VI. are on a separate piece of
undated paper, and must belong to a letter of later date; only three
lectures were published by December 7th, 1862.)

Lecture IV., page 89—Atavism.

You here and there use atavism = inheritance. Duchesne, who, I believe,
invented the word, in his Strawberry book confined it, as every one has
since done, to resemblance to grandfather or more remote ancestor, in
contradistinction to resemblance to parents.

LETTER 150. TO JOHN SCOTT.

(150/1. The following is the first of a series of letters addressed to the
late John Scott, of which the major part is given in our Botanical
chapters. We have been tempted to give this correspondence fully not only
because of its intrinsic scientific interest, but also because they are
almost the only letters which show Darwin in personal relation with a
younger man engaged in research under his supervision.)

{1862?}

To the best of my judgment, no subject is so important in relation to
theoretical natural science, in several respects, and likewise in itself
deserving investigation, as the effects of changed or unnatural
conditions, or of changed structure on the reproductive system. Under this
point of view the relation of well-marked but undoubted varieties in
fertilising each other requires far more experiments than have been tried.
See in the "Origin" the brief abstract of Gartner on Verbascum and Zea.
Mr. W. Crocker, lately foreman at Kew and a very good observer, is going
at my suggestion to work varieties of hollyhock. (150/2. Altheae species.
These experiments seem not to have been carried out.) The climate would be
too cold, I suppose, for varieties of tobacco. I began on cabbages, but
immediately stopped from early shedding of their pollen causing too much
trouble. Your knowledge would suggest some {plants}. On the same principle
it would be well to test peloric flowers with their own pollen, and with
pollen of regular flowers, and try pollen of peloric on regular flowers—seeds
being counted in each case. I have now got one seedling from many crosses
of a peloric Pelargonium by peloric pollen; I have two or three seedlings
from a peloric flower by pollen of regular flower. I have ordered a
peloric Antirrhinum (150/3. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition
I., Volume II., page 70.) and the peloric Gloxinia, but I much fear I
shall never have time to try them. The Passiflora cases are truly
wonderful, like the Crinum cases (see "Origin"). (150/4. "Origin," Edition
VI., page 238.) I have read in a German paper that some varieties of
potatoes (name not given) cannot be fertilised by {their} own pollen, but
can by pollen of other varieties: well worth trying. Again, fertility of
any monster flower, which is pretty regularly produced; I have got the
wonderful Begonia frigida (150/5. The species on which Sir J.D. Hooker
wrote in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," February 25th, 1860. See "Life and
Letters," II., page 275.) from Kew, but doubt whether I have heat to set
its seeds. If an unmodified Celosia could be got, it would be well to test
with the modified cockscomb. There is a variation of columbine {Aquilegia}
with simple petals without nectaries, etc., etc. I never could think what
to try; but if one could get hold of a long-cultivated plant which crossed
with a distinct species and yielded a very small number of seeds, then it
would be highly good to test comparatively the wild parent-form and its
varying offspring with this third species: for instance, if a polyanthus
would cross with some species of Primula, then to try a wild cowslip with
it. I believe hardly any primulas have ever been crossed. If we knew and
could get the parent of the carnation (150/6. Dianthus caryophyllus,
garden variety.), it would be very good for this end. Any member of the
Lythraceae raised from seed ought to be well looked after for dimorphism.
I have wonderful facts, the result of experiment, on Lythrum salicaria.

LETTER 151. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, December 11th {1862}.

I have read your paper with much interest. (151/1. "On the Nature and
Peculiarities of the Fern-spore." "Bot. Soc. Edin." Read June 12th, 1862.)
You ask for remarks on the matter, which is alone really important. Shall
you think me impertinent (I am sure I do not mean to be so) if I hazard a
remark on the style, which is of more importance than some think? In my
opinion (whether or no worth much) your paper would have been much better
if written more simply and less elaborated—more like your letters.
It is a golden rule always to use, if possible, a short old Saxon word.
Such a sentence as "so purely dependent is the incipient plant on the
specific morphological tendency" does not sound to my ears like good
mother-English—it wants translating. Here and there you might, I
think, have condensed some sentences. I go on the plan of thinking every
single word which can be omitted without actual loss of sense as a decided
gain. Now perhaps you will think me a meddling intruder: anyhow, it is the
advice of an old hackneyed writer who sincerely wishes you well. Your
remark on the two sexes counteracting variability in product of the one is
new to me. (151/2. Scott (op. cit., page 214): "The reproductive organs of
phoenogams, as is well-known, are always products of two morphologically
distinct organs, the stamens producing the pollen, the carpels producing
the ovules...The embryo being in this case the modified resultant of two
originally distinct organs, there will necessarily be a greater tendency
to efface any individual peculiarities of these than would have been the
case had the embryo been the product of a single organ." A different idea
seems to have occurred to Mr. Darwin, for in an undated letter to Scott he
wrote: "I hardly know what to say on your view of male and female organs
and variability. I must think more over it. But I was amused by finding
the other day in my portfolio devoted to bud-variation a slip of paper
dated June, 1860, with some such words as these, 'May not permanence of
grafted buds be due to the two sexual elements derived from different
parts not having come into play?' I had utterly forgotten, when I read
your paper that any analogous notion had ever passed through my mind—nor
can I now remember, but the slip shows me that it had." It is interesting
that Huxley also came to a conclusion differing from Scott's; and,
curiously enough, Darwin confused the two views, for he wrote to Scott
(December 19th): "By an odd chance, reading last night some short lectures
just published by Prof. Huxley, I find your observation, independently
arrived at by him, on the confluence of the two sexes causing
variability." Professor Huxley's remarks are in his "Lectures to Working
Men on our Knowledge, etc." No. 4, page 90: "And, indeed, I think that a
certain amount of variation from the primitive stock is the necessary
result of the method of sexual propagation itself; for inasmuch as the
thing propagated proceeds from two organisms of different sexes and
different makes and temperaments, and, as the offspring is to be either of
one sex or the other, it is quite clear that it cannot be an exact
diagonal of the two, or it would be of no sex at all; it cannot be an
exact intermediate form between that of each of its parents—it must
deviate to one side or the other.") But I cannot avoid thinking that there
is something unknown and deeper in seminal generation. Reflect on the long
succession of embryological changes in every animal. Does a bud ever
produce cotyledons or embryonic leaves? I have been much interested by
your remark on inheritance at corresponding ages; I hope you will, as you
say, continue to attend to this. Is it true that female Primula plants
always produce females by parthenogenesis? (151/3. It seems probable that
Darwin here means vegetative reproduction.) If you can answer this I
should be glad; it bears on my Primula work. I thought on the subject, but
gave up investigating what had been observed, because the female bee by
parthenogenesis produces males alone. Your paper has told me much that in
my ignorance was quite new to me. Thanks about P. scotica. If any
important criticisms are made on the Primula to the Botanical Society, I
should be glad to hear them. If you think fit, you may state that I
repeated the crossing experiments on P. sinensis and cowslip with the same
result this spring as last year—indeed, with rather more marked
difference in fertility of the two crosses. In fact, had I then proved the
Linum case, I would not have wasted time in repetition. I am determined I
will at once publish on Linum...

I was right to be cautious in supposing you in error about Siphocampylus
(no flowers were enclosed). I hope that you will make out whether the
pistil presents two definite lengths; I shall be astounded if it does. I
do not fully understand your objections to Natural Selection; if I do, I
presume they would apply with full force to, for instance, birds. Reflect
on modification of Arab-Turk horse into our English racehorse. I have had
the satisfaction to tell my publisher to send my "Journal" and "Origin" to
your address. I suspect, with your fertile mind, you will find it far
better to experiment on your own choice; but if, on reflection, you would
like to try some which interest me, I should be truly delighted, and in
this case would write in some detail. If you have the means to repeat
Gartner's experiments on variations of Verbascum or on maize (see the
"Origin"), such experiments would be pre-eminently important. I could
never get variations of Verbascum. I could suggest an experiment on
potatoes analogous with the case of Passiflora; even the case of
Passiflora, often as it has been repeated, might be with advantage
repeated. I have worked like a slave (having counted about nine thousand
seeds) on Melastoma, on the meaning of the two sets of very different
stamens, and as yet have been shamefully beaten, and I now cry for aid. I
could suggest what I believe a very good scheme (at least, Dr. Hooker
thought so) for systematic degeneration of culinary plants, and so find
out their origin; but this would be laborious and the work of years.

LETTER 152. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, 12th {December, 1862}.

My good old Friend—

How kind you have been to give me so much of your time! Your letter is of
real use, and has been and shall be well considered. I am much pleased to
find that we do not differ as much as I feared. I begin my book with
saying that my chief object is to show the inordinate scale of variation;
I have especially studied all sorts of variations of the individual. On
crossing I cannot change; the more I think, the more reason I have to
believe that my conclusion would be agreed to by all practised breeders. I
also greatly doubt about variability and domestication being at all
necessarily correlative, but I have touched on this in "Origin." Plants
being identical under very different conditions has always seemed to me a
very heavy argument against what I call direct action. I think perhaps I
will take the case of 1,000 pigeons (152/1. See Letter 146.) to sum up my
volume; I will not discuss other points, but, as I have said, I shall
recur to your letter. But I must just say that if sterility be allowed to
come into play, if long-beaked be in the least degree sterile with
short-beaked, my whole case is altered. By the way, my notions on
hybridity are becoming considerably altered by my dimorphic work. I am now
strongly inclined to believe that sterility is at first a selected quality
to keep incipient species distinct. If you have looked at Lythrum you will
see how pollen can be modified merely to favour crossing; with equal
readiness it could be modified to prevent crossing.

It is this which makes me so much interested with dimorphism, etc. (152/2.
This gives a narrow impression of Darwin's interest in dimorphism. The
importance of his work was (briefly put) the proof that sterility has no
necessary connection with specific difference, but depends on sexual
differentiation independent of racial differences. See "Life and Letters,"
III., page 296. His point of view that sterility is a selected quality is
again given in a letter to Huxley ("Life and Letters," II., page 384), but
was not upheld in his later writings (see "Origin of Species," Edition
VI., page 245). The idea of sterility being a selected quality is
interesting in connection with Romanes' theory of physiological selection.
(See Letters 209-214.))

One word more. When you pitched me head over heels by your new way of
looking at the back side of variation, I received assurance and strength
by considering monsters—due to law: horribly strange as they are,
the monsters were alive till at least when born. They differ at least as
much from the parent as any one mammal from another.

I have just finished a long, weary chapter on simple facts of variation of
cultivated plants, and am now refreshing myself with a paper on Linum for
the Linnean Society.

LETTER 153. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER.

(153/1. The following letter also bears on the question of the artificial
production of sterility.)

Down, 27th {December, 1862}.

The present plan is to try whether any existing breeds happen to have
acquired accidentally any degree of sterility; but to this point
hereafter. The enclosed MS. will show what I have done and know on the
subject. Please at some future time carefully return the MS. to me. If I
were going to try again, I would prefer Turbit with Carrier or Dragon.

I will suggest an analogous experiment, which I have had for two years in
my experimental book with "be sure and try," but which, as my health gets
yearly weaker and weaker and my other work increases, I suppose I shall
never try. Permit me to add that if 5 pounds would cover the expenses of
the experiment, I should be delighted to give it, and you could publish
the result if there be any result. I crossed the Spanish cock (your bird)
and white Silk hen and got plenty of eggs and chickens; but two of them
seemed to be quite sterile. I was then sadly overdone with work, but have
ever since much reproached myself that I did not preserve and carefully
test the procreative power of these hens. Now, if you are inclined to get
a Spanish cock and a couple of white Silk hens, I shall be most grateful
to hear whether the offspring breed well: they will prove, I think, not
hardy; if they should prove sterile, which I can hardly believe, they will
anyhow do for the pot. If you do try this, how would it do to put a Silk
cock to your curious silky Cochin hen, so as to get a big silk breed; it
would be curious if you could get silky fowl with bright colours. I
believe a Silk hen crossed by any other breed never gives silky feathers.
A cross from Silk cock and Cochin Silk hen ought to give silky feathers
and probably bright colours.

I have been led lately from experiments (not published) on dimorphism to
reflect much on sterility from hybridism, and partially to change the
opinion given in "Origin." I have now letters out enquiring on the
following point, implied in the experiment, which seems to me well worth
trying, but too laborious ever to be attempted. I would ask every pigeon
and fowl fancier whether they have ever observed, in the same breed, a
cock A paired to a hen B which did not produce young. Then I would get
cock A and match it to a hen of its nearest blood; and hen B to its
nearest blood. I would then match the offspring of A (viz., a, b, c, d, e)
to the offspring of B (viz., f, g, h, i, j), and all those children which
were fertile together should be destroyed until I found one—say a,
which was not quite fertile with—say, i. Then a and i should be
preserved and paired with their parents A and B, so as to try and get two
families which would not unite together; but the members WITHIN each
family being fertile together. This would probably be quite hopeless; but
he who could effect this would, I believe, solve the problem of sterility
from hybridism. If you should ever hear of individual fowls or pigeons
which are sterile together, I should be very grateful to hear of the case.
It is a parallel case to those recorded of a man not impotent long living
with a woman who remained childless; the husband died, and the woman
married again and had plenty of children. Apparently (by no means
certainly) this first man and woman were dissimilar in their sexual
organisation. I conceive it possible that their offspring (if both had
married again and both had children) would be sexually dissimilar, like
their parents, or sterile together. Pray forgive my dreadful writing; I
have been very unwell all day, and have no strength to re-write this
scrawl. I am working slowly on, and I suppose in three or four months
shall be ready.

I am sure I do not know whether any human being could understand or read
this shameful scrawl.

LETTER 154. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December, 28th {1862}.

I return enclosed: if you write, thank Mr. Kingsley for thinking of
letting me see the sound sense of an Eastern potentate. (154/1. Kingsley's
letter to Huxley, dated December 20th, 1862, contains a story or parable
of a heathen Khan in Tartary who was visited by a pair of proselytising
Moollahs. The first Moollah said: "Oh! Khan, worship my God. He is so wise
that he made all things." But Moollah No. 2 won the day by pointing out
that his God is "so wise that he makes all things make themselves.") All
that I said about the little book (154/2. The six "Lectures to Working
Men," published in six pamphlets and in book-form in 1863. Mr. Huxley
considered that Mr. Darwin's argument required the production by man's
selection of breeds which should be mutually infertile, and thus resemble
distinct species physiologically as well as morphologically.) is strictly
my opinion; it is in every way excellent, and cannot fail to do good the
wider it is circulated. Whether it is worth your while to give up time to
it is another question for you alone to decide; that it will do good for
the subject is beyond all question. I do not think a dunce exists who
could not understand it, and that is a bold saying after the extent to
which I have been misunderstood. I did not understand what you required
about sterility: assuredly the facts given do not go nearly so far. We
differ so much that it is no use arguing. To get the degree of sterility
you expect in recently formed varieties seems to me simply hopeless. It
seems to me almost like those naturalists who declare they will never
believe that one species turns into another till they see every stage in
process.

I have heard from Tegetmeier, and have given him the result of my crosses
of the birds which he proposes to try, and have told him how alone I think
the experiment could be tried with the faintest hope of success—namely,
to get, if possible, a case of two birds which when paired were
unproductive, yet neither impotent. For instance, I had this morning a
letter with a case of a Hereford heifer, which seemed to be, after
repeated trials, sterile with one particular and far from impotent bull,
but not with another bull. But it is too long a story—it is to
attempt to make two strains, both fertile, and yet sterile when one of one
strain is crossed with one of the other strain. But the difficulty...would
be beyond calculation. As far as I see, Tegetmeier's plan would simply
test whether two existing breeds are now in any slight degree sterile;
which has already been largely tested: not that I dispute the good of
re-testing.

LETTER 155. TO HUGH FALCONER.

(155/1. The original letter is dated "December 10th," but this must, we
think, be a slip of the pen for January 10th. It contains a reference to
No. VI. of the "Lectures to Working Men" which, as Mr. Leonard Huxley is
good enough to inform us, was not delivered until December 15th, and
therefore could not have been seen by Mr. Darwin on December 10th. The
change of date makes comprehensible the reference to Falconer's paper "On
the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions bordering the Gulf of Mexico
(E. Columbi, Falc.)," which appeared in the January number of the "Natural
History Review." It is true that he had seen advanced sheets of Falconer's
paper ("Life and Letters," II., page 389), but the reference here is to
the complete paper.

In the present volume we have thought it right to give some expression to
the attitude of Darwin towards Owen. Professor Owen's biographer has
clearly felt the difficulty of making a statement on Owen's attitude
towards Darwinism, and has ("Life of Sir Richard Owen," Volume II., page
92) been driven to adopt the severe indictment contained in the "Origin of
Species," Edition VI., page xviii. Darwin was by no means alone in his
distrust of Owen; and to omit altogether a reference to the conduct which
led up to the isolation of Owen among his former friends and colleagues
would be to omit a part of the history of science of the day. And since we
cannot omit to notice Darwin's point of view, it seems right to give the
facts of a typical case illustrating the feeling with which he regarded
Owen. This is all the more necessary since the recently published
biography of Sir R. Owen gives no hint, as far as we are aware, of even a
difference of opinion with other scientific men.

The account which Falconer gives in the above-mentioned paper in the "Nat.
Hist. Review" (January, 1863) would be amusing if the matter were less
serious. In 1857 Falconer described ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." XIII.) a
new species of fossil elephant from America, to which he gave the name
Elephas Columbi, a designation which was recognised and adopted by
Continental writers. In 1858 (Brit. Assoc. Leeds) Owen made use of the
name "Elephas texianus," Blake" for the species which Falconer had
previously named E. Columbi, but without referring to Falconer's
determination; he gave no authority, "thus by the established usage in
zoology producing it as his own." In 1861 Owen in his Palaeontology, 2nd
edition, 1861, describes the elephant as E. texianus, Blake. To Mr.
Blake's name is appended an asterisk which refers to a footnote to
Bollaert's "Antiquities of S. America," 2nd edition. According to Falconer
(page 46) no second edition of Bollaert had appeared at the time of
writing (August, 1862), and in the first edition (1860) he was "unable to
detect the occurrence of the name even, of E. texianus, anywhere
throughout the volume"; though Bollaert mentions the fact that he had
deposited, in the British Museum, the tooth of a fossil elephant from
Texas.

In November, 1861, Blake wrote a paper in the "Geologist" in which the new
elephant no longer bears his own name as authority, but is described as
"Elephas texianus, Owen, E. Columbi, Falconer." Finally, in another paper
the name of Owen is dropped and the elephant is once more his own. As
Falconer remarks, "the usage of science does not countenance such
accommodating arrangements, when the result is to prejudice a prior
right."

It may be said, no doubt, that the question who first described a given
species is a petty one; but this view has a double edge, and applies most
strongly to those who neglect the just claims of their predecessors.

Down, January 5th {1863}.

I finished your Elephant paper last night, and you must let me express my
admiration at it. (155/2. "On the American Fossil Elephant of the Regions
bordering the Gulf of Mexico (E. Columbi, Falc.), etc." "Nat. Hist. Rev."
1863, page 81. (Cf. Letter to Lyell. "Life and Letters," II., page 389;
also "Origin," Edition VI., page 306.) See Letter 143.) All the points
strike me as admirably worked out, and very many most interesting. I was
particularly struck with your remarks on the character of the ancient
Mammalian Fauna of N. America (155/3. Falconer, page 62. This passage is
marked in Darwin's copy.); it agrees with all I fancied was the case,
namely a temporary irruption of S. American forms into N. America, and
conversely, I chuckled a little over the specimen of M. Andium
"hesitating" between the two groups. (155/4. In speaking of the characters
of Mastodon Andium, Falconer refers to a former paper by himself ("Quart.
Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XIII. 1857, page 313), in which he called
attention "to the exceptional character of certain specimens of M. Andium,
as if hesitating between {the groups} Tetralophodon and Trilophodon"
(ibid., page 100).) I have been assured by Mr. Wallace that abundant
Mastodon remains have been found at Timor, and that is rather close to
Australia. I rejoice that you have smashed that case. (155/5. In the paper
in the "Nat. Hist. Review" (loc. cit.) Falconer writes: "It seems more
probable that some unintentional error has got mixed up with the history
of this remarkable fossil; and until further confirmatory evidence is
adduced, of an unimpeachable character, faith cannot be reposed in the
reality of the asserted Australian Mastodon" (page 101).) It is indeed a
grand paper. I will say nothing more about your allusions to me, except
that they have pleased me quite as much in print as in MS. You must have
worked very hard; the labour must have been extreme, but I do hope that
you will have health and strength to go on. You would laugh if you could
see how indignant all Owen's mean conduct about E. Columbi made me.
(155/6. See Letter 157.) I did not get to sleep till past 3 o'clock. How
well you lash him, firmly and severely, with unruffled temper, as if you
were performing a simple duty. The case is come to such a pass, that I
think every man of science is bound to show his feelings by some overt
act, and I shall watch for a fitting opportunity.

P.S.—I have kept back for a day the enclosed owing to the arrival of
your most interesting letter. I knew it was a mere chance whether you
could inform me on the points required; but no one other person has so
often responded to my miscellaneous queries. I believe I have now in my
greenhouse L. trigynum (155/7. Linum trigynum.), which came up from seed
purchased as L. flavum, from which it is wholly different in foliage. I
have just sent in a paper on Dimorphism of Linum to the Linnean Society
(155/8. "On the Existence of the Forms, and on their reciprocal Sexual
Relation, in several species of the genus Linum.—"Journ. Linn. Soc."
Volume VII., page 69, 1864.), and so I do not doubt your memory is right
about L. trigynum: the functional difference in the two forms of Linum is
really wonderful. I assure you I quite long to see you and a few others in
London; it is not so much the eczema which has taken the epidermis a dozen
times clean off; but I have been knocked up of late with extraordinary
facility, and when I shall be able to come up I know not. I particularly
wish to hear about the wondrous bird: the case has delighted me, because
no group is so isolated as Birds. I much wish to hear when we meet which
digits are developed; when examining birds two or three years ago, I
distinctly remember writing to Lyell that some day a fossil bird would be
found with the end of wing cloven, i.e. the bastard-wing and other part,
both well developed. Thanks for Von Martius, returned by this post, which
I was glad to see. Poor old Wagner (Probably Johann Andreas Wagner, author
of "Zur Feststellung des Artbegriffes, mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die
Ansichten von Nathusius, Darwin, Is. Geoffroy and Agassiz," "Munchen
Sitzungsb." (1861), page 301, and of numerous papers on zoological and
palaeozoological subjects.) always attacked me in a proper spirit, and
sent me two or three little brochures, and I thanked him cordially. The
Germans seem much stirred up on the subject. I received by the same post
almost a little volume on the "Origin."

I cannot work above a couple of hours daily, and this plays the deuce with
me.

P.S. 2nd.—I have worked like a slave and been baffled like a slave
in trying to make out the meaning of two very different sets of stamens in
some Melastomaceae. (155/9. Several letters on the Melastomaceae occur in
our Botanical section.) I must tell you one fact. I counted 9,000 seeds,
one by one, from my artificially fertilised pods. There is something very
odd, but I am as yet beaten. Plants from two pollens grow at different
rates! Now, what I want to know is, whether in individuals of the same
species, growing together, you have ever noticed any difference in the
position of the pistil or in the size and colour of the stamens?

LETTER 156. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 18th {1862}.

I have read Nos. IV, and V. (156/1. "On our Knowledge of the Causes of the
Phenomena of Organic Nature," being six Lectures to Working Men delivered
at the Museum of Practical Geology by Prof. Huxley, 1863. These lectures,
which were given once a week from November 10th, 1862, onwards, were
printed from the notes of Mr. J.A. Mays, a shorthand writer, who asked
permission to publish them on his own account; Mr. Huxley stating in a
prefatory "Notice" that he had no leisure to revise the lectures.) They
are simply perfect. They ought to be largely advertised; but it is very
good in me to say so, for I threw down No. IV. with this reflection, "What
is the good of writing a thundering big book, when everything is in this
green little book, so despicable for its size?" In the name of all that is
good and bad, I may as well shut up shop altogether. You put capitally and
most simply and clearly the relation of animals and plants to each other
at page 122.

Be careful about Fantails: their tail-feathers are fixed in a radiating
position, but they can depress and elevate them. I remember in a
pigeon-book seeing withering contempt expressed at some naturalist for not
knowing this important point! Page 111 (156/2. The reference is to the
original little green paper books in which the lectures first appeared;
the paging in the bound volume dated 1863 is slightly different. The
passage here is, "...If you couple a male and female hybrid...the result
is that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred you will get no offspring at
all." Darwin maintains elsewhere that Huxley, from not knowing the
botanical evidence, made too much of this point. See "Life and Letters,"
II., page 384.) seems a little too strong—viz., ninety-nine out of a
hundred, unless you except plants.

Page 118: You say the answer to varieties when crossed being at all
sterile is "absolutely a negative." (156/3. Huxley, page 112: "Can we find
any approximation to this {sterility of hybrids} in the different races
known to be produced by selective breeding from a common stock? Up to the
present time the answer to that question is absolutely a negative one.")
Do you mean to say that Gartner lied, after experiments by the hundred
(and he a hostile witness), when he showed that this was the case with
Verbascum and with maize (and here you have selected races): does
Kolreuter lie when he speaks about the varieties of tobacco? My God, is
not the case difficult enough, without its being, as I must think, falsely
made more difficult? I believe it is my own fault—my d—d
candour: I ought to have made ten times more fuss about these most careful
experiments. I did put it stronger in the third edition of the "Origin."
If you have a new edition, do consider your second geological section: I
do not dispute the truth of your statement; but I maintain that in almost
every case the gravel would graduate into the mud; that there would not be
a hard, straight line between the mass of gravel and mud; that the gravel,
in crawling inland, would be separated from the underlying beds by oblique
lines of stratification. A nice idea of the difficulty of Geology your
section would give to a working man! Do show your section to Ramsay, and
tell him what I say; and if he thinks it a fair section for a beginner I
am shut up, and "will for ever hold my tongue." Good-night.

LETTER 157. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, {January} 10th {1863}.

You will be weary of notes from me about the little book of yours. It is
lucky for me that I expressed, before reading No. VI. (157/1. "Lectures to
Working Men," No. VI., is a critical examination of the position of the
"Origin of Species" in relation to the complete theory of the "causes of
the phenomena of organic nature."), my opinion of its absolute excellence,
and of its being well worth wide distribution and worth correction (not
that I see where you could improve), if you thought it worth your valuable
time. Had I read No. VI., even a rudiment of modesty would, or ought to,
have stopped me saying so much. Though I have been well abused, yet I have
had so much praise, that I have become a gourmand, both as to capacity and
taste; and I really did not think that mortal man could have tickled my
palate in the exquisite manner with which you have done the job. So I am
an old ass, and nothing more need be said about this. I agree entirely
with all your reservations about accepting the doctrine, and you might
have gone further with further safety and truth. Of course I do not wholly
agree about sterility. I hate beyond all things finding myself in
disagreement with any capable judge, when the premises are the same; and
yet this will occasionally happen. Thinking over my former letter to you,
I fancied (but I now doubt) that I had partly found out the cause of our
disagreement, and I attributed it to your naturally thinking most about
animals, with which the sterility of the hybrids is much more conspicuous
than the lessened fertility of the first cross. Indeed, this could hardly
be ascertained with mammals, except by comparing the products of {their}
whole life; and, as far as I know, this has only been ascertained in the
case of the horse and ass, which do produce fewer offspring in {their}
lifetime than in pure breeding. In plants the test of first cross seems as
fair as test of sterility of hybrids. And this latter test applies, I will
maintain to the death, to the crossing of varieties of Verbascum, and
varieties, selected varieties, of Zea. (157/2. See Letter 156.) You will
say Go to the Devil and hold your tongue. No, I will not hold my tongue;
for I must add that after going, for my present book, all through domestic
animals, I have come to the conclusion that there are almost certainly
several cases of two or three or more species blended together and now
perfectly fertile together. Hence I conclude that there must be something
in domestication,—perhaps the less stable conditions, the very cause
which induces so much variability,—which eliminates the natural
sterility of species when crossed. If so, we can see how unlikely that
sterility should arise between domestic races. Now I will hold my tongue.
Page 143: ought not "Sanscrit" to be "Aryan"? What a capital number the
last "Natural History Review" is! That is a grand paper by Falconer. I
cannot say how indignant Owen's conduct about E. Columbi has made me. I
believe I hate him more than you do, even perhaps more than good old
Falconer does. But I have bubbled over to one or two correspondents on
this head, and will say no more. I have sent Lubbock a little review of
Bates' paper in "Linn. Transact." (157/3. The unsigned review of Mr.
Bates' work on mimetic butterflies appeared in the "Nat. Hist. Review"
(1863), page 219.) which L. seems to think will do for your "Review." Do
inaugurate a great improvement, and have pages cut, like the Yankees do; I
will heap blessings on your head. Do not waste your time in answering
this.

I have no criticism, except one sentence not perfectly smooth. I think
your introductory remarks very striking, interesting, and novel. (158/1.
"On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera) dimidiatum, Part I. By John
Lubbock. "Trans. Linn. Soc." Volume XXIV., pages 61-78, 1864 {Read January
15th, 1863}.) They interested me the more, because the vaguest thoughts of
the same kind had passed through my head; but I had no idea that they
could be so well developed, nor did I know of exceptions. Sitaris and
Meloe (158/2. Sitaris and Meloe, two genera of coleopterous insects, are
referred to by Lubbock (op. cit., pages 63-64) as "perhaps...the most
remarkable cases...among the Coleoptera" of curious and complicated
metamorphoses.) seem very good. You have put the whole case of
metamorphosis in a new light; I dare say what you remark about poverty of
fresh-water is very true. (158/3. "We cannot but be struck by the poverty
of the fresh-water fauna when compared with that of the ocean" (op. cit.,
page 64).) I think you might write a memoir on fresh-water productions. I
suggest that the key-note is that land-productions are higher and have
advantage in general over marine; and consequently land-productions have
generally been modified into fresh-water productions, instead of marine
productions being directly changed into fresh-water productions, as at
first seems more probable, as the chance of immigration is always open
from sea to rivers and ponds.

My talk with you did me a deal of good, and I enjoyed it much.

LETTER 159. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 13th {1863}.

I send a very imperfect answer to {your} question, which I have written on
foreign paper to save you copying, and you can send when you write to
Thomson in Calcutta. Hereafter I shall be able to answer better your
question about qualities induced in individuals being inherited; gout in
man—loss of wool in sheep (which begins in the first generation and
takes two or three to complete); probably obesity (for it is rare with
poor); probably obesity and early maturity in short-horn cattle, etc.,
etc.

LETTER 160. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 14th {1863}.

I thank you most sincerely for sending me your Memoir. (160/1. Etude sur
l'Espece a l'occasion d'une revision de la Famille des Cupuliferes.
"Biblioth. Univ. (Arch. des Sc. Phys. et Nat.)," Novembre 1862.) I have
read it with the liveliest interest, as is natural for me; but you have
the art of making subjects, which might be dry, run easily. I have been
fairly astonished at the amount of individual variability in the oaks. I
never saw before the subject in any department of nature worked out so
carefully. What labour it must have cost you! You spoke in one letter of
advancing years; but I am very sure that no one would have suspected that
you felt this. I have been interested with every part; though I am so
unfortunate as to differ from most of my contemporaries in thinking that
the vast continental extensions (160/2. See Letters 47, 48.) of Forbes,
Heer, and others are not only advanced without sufficient evidence, but
are opposed to much weighty evidence. You refer to my work in the kindest
and most generous spirit. I am fully satisfied at the length in belief to
which you go, and not at all surprised at the prudent reservations which
you make. I remember well how many years it cost me to go round from old
beliefs. It is encouraging to me to observe that everyone who has gone an
inch with me, after a period goes a few more inches or even feet. But the
great point, as it seems to me, is to give up the immutability of specific
forms; as long as they are thought immutable, there can be no real
progress in "Epiontology." (160/3. See De Candolle, loc. cit., page 67: he
defines "Epiontologie" as the study of the distribution and succession of
organised beings from their origin up to the present time. At present
Epiontology is divided into geography and palaeontology, "mais cette
division trop inegale et a limites bien vagues disparaitra probablement.")
It matters very little to any one except myself, whether I am a little
more or less wrong on this or that point; in fact, I am sure to be proved
wrong in many points. But the subject will have, I am convinced, a grand
future. Considering that birds are the most isolated group in the animal
kingdom, what a splendid case is this Solenhofen bird-creature with its
long tail and fingers to its wings! I have lately been daily and hourly
using and quoting your "Geographical Botany" in my book on "Variation
under Domestication."

LETTER 161. TO HORACE DOBELL. Down, February 16th {1863}.

Absence from home and consequent idleness are the causes that I have not
sooner thanked you for your very kind present of your Lectures. (161/1.
"On the Germs and Vestiges of Disease," (London) 1861.) Your reasoning
seems quite satisfactory (though the subject is rather beyond my limit of
thought and knowledge) on the V.M.F. not being "a given quantity." (161/2.
"It has been too common to consider the force exhibited in the operations
of life (the V.M.F.) as a given quantity, to which no accessions can be
made, but which is apportioned to each living being in quantity sufficient
for its necessities, according to some hidden law" (op. cit., page 41.)
And I can see that the conditions of life must play a most important part
in allowing this quantity to increase, as in the budding of a tree, etc.
How far these conditions act on "the forms of organic life" (page 46) I do
not see clearly. In fact, no part of my subject has so completely puzzled
me as to determine what effect to attribute to (what I vaguely call) the
direct action of the conditions of life. I shall before long come to this
subject, and must endeavour to come to some conclusion when I have got the
mass of collected facts in some sort of order in my mind. My present
impression is that I have underrated this action in the "Origin." I have
no doubt when I go through your volume I shall find other points of
interest and value to me. I have already stumbled on one case (about which
I want to consult Mr. Paget)—namely, on the re-growth of
supernumerary digits. (161/3. See Letters 178, 270.) You refer to "White
on Regeneration, etc., 1785." I have been to the libraries of the Royal
and the Linnean Societies, and to the British Museum, where the librarians
got out your volume and made a special hunt, and could discover no trace
of such a book. Will you grant me the favour of giving me any clue, where
I could see the book? Have you it? if so, and the case is given briefly,
would you have the great kindness to copy it? I much want to know all
particulars. One case has been given me, but with hardly minute enough
details, of a supernumerary little finger which has already been twice cut
off, and now the operation will soon have to be done for the third time. I
am extremely much obliged for the genealogical table; the fact of the two
cousins not, as far as yet appears, transmitting the peculiarity is
extraordinary, and must be given by me.

LETTER 162. TO C. LYELL. {February 17th, 1863.}

The same post that brought the enclosed brought Dana's pamphlet on the
same subject. (162/1. The pamphlet referred to was published in
"Silliman's Journal," Volume XXV., 1863, pages 65 and 71, also in the
"Annals and Magazine of Natural History," Volume XI., pages 207-14, 1863:
"On the Higher Subdivisions in the Classification of Mammals." In this
paper Dana maintains the view that "Man's title to a position by himself,
separate from the other mammals in classification, appears to be fixed on
structural as well as physical grounds" (page 210). His description is as
follows:—

The whole seems to me utterly wild. If there had not been the foregone
wish to separate men, I can never believe that Dana or any one would have
relied on so small a distinction as grown man not using fore-limbs for
locomotion, seeing that monkeys use their limbs in all other respects for
the same purpose as man. To carry on analogous principles (for they are
not identical, in crustacea the cephalic limbs are brought close to mouth)
from crustacea to the classification of mammals seems to me madness. Who
would dream of making a fundamental distinction in birds, from fore-limbs
not being used at all in {some} birds, or used as fins in the penguin, and
for flight in other birds?

I get on slowly with your grand work, for I am overwhelmed with odds and
ends and letters.

LETTER 163. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(163/1. The following extract refers to Owen's paper in the "Linn. Soc.
Journal," June, 1857, in which the classification of the Mammalia by
cerebral characters was proposed. In spite of the fact that men and apes
are placed in distinct Sub-Classes, Owen speaks (in the foot-note of which
Huxley made such telling effect) of the determination of the difference
between Homo and Pithecus as the anatomist's difficulty. (See Letter
119.))

July 5th, 1857.

What a capital number of the "Linnean Journal!" Owen's is a grand paper;
but I cannot swallow Man making a division as distinct from a chimpanzee
as an Ornithorhynchus from a horse; I wonder what a chimpanzee would say
to this? (163/2. According to Owen the sub-class Archencephala contains
only the genus Homo: the Gyrencephala contains both chimpanzee and horse,
the Lyencephala contains Ornithorhynchus.)

LETTER 164. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down {February?} 26th, 1863.

I have just finished with very great interest "Man's Place." (164/1.
"Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature," 1863 (preface dated January
1863).) I never fail to admire the clearness and condensed vigour of your
style, as one calls it, but really of your thought. I have no criticisms;
nor is it likely that I could have. But I think you could have added some
interesting matter on the character or disposition of the young ourangs
which have been kept in France and England. I should have thought you
might have enlarged a little on the later embryological changes in man and
on his rudimentary structure, tail as compared with tail of higher
monkeys, intermaxillary bone, false ribs, and I daresay other points, such
as muscles of ears, etc., etc. I was very much struck with admiration at
the opening pages of Part II. (and oh! what a delicious sneer, as good as
a dessert, at page 106) (164/2. Huxley, op. cit., page 106. After saying
that "there is but one hypothesis regarding the origin of species of
animals in general which has any scientific existence—that
propounded by Mr. Darwin," and after a few words on Lamarck, he goes on:
"And though I have heard of the announcement of a formula touching 'the
ordained continuous becoming of organic forms,' it is obvious that it is
the first duty of a hypothesis to be intelligible, and that a
qua-qua-versal proposition of this kind, which may be read backwards or
forwards, or sideways, with exactly the same amount of significance, does
not really exist, though it may seem to do so." The "formula" in question
is Owen's.): but my admiration is unbounded at pages 109 to 112. I declare
I never in my life read anything grander. Bacon himself could not have
charged a few paragraphs with more condensed and cutting sense than you
have done. It is truly grand. I regret extremely that you could not, or
did not, end your book (not that I mean to say a word against the
Geological History) with these pages. With a book, as with a fine day, one
likes it to end with a glorious sunset. I congratulate you on its
publication; but do not be disappointed if it does not sell largely: parts
are highly scientific, and I have often remarked that the best books
frequently do not get soon appreciated: certainly large sale is no proof
of the highest merit. But I hope it may be widely distributed; and I am
rejoiced to see in your note to Miss Rhadamanthus (164/3. This refers to
Mr. Darwin's daughter (now Mrs. Litchfield), whom Mr. Huxley used to laugh
at for the severity of her criticisms.) that a second thousand is called
for of the little book. What a letter that is of Owen's in the "Athenaeum"
(164/4. A letter by Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863, replying
to strictures on his treatment of the brain question, which had appeared
in Lyell's "Antiquity of Man."); how cleverly he will utterly muddle and
confound the public. Indeed he quite muddled me, till I read again your
"concise statement" (164/5. This refers to a section (pages 113-18) in
"Man's Place in Nature," headed "A succinct History of the Controversy
respecting the Cerebral Structure of Man and the Apes." Huxley follows the
question from Owen's attempt to classify the mammalia by cerebral
characters, published by the "Linn. Soc." in 1857, up to his revival of
the subject at the Cambridge meeting of the British Association in 1862.
It is a tremendous indictment of Owen, and seems to us to conclude not
unfittingly with a citation from Huxley's article in the "Medical Times,"
October 11th, 1862. Huxley here points out that special investigations
have been made into the question at issue "during the last two years" by
Allen Thomson, Rolleston, Marshall, Flower, Schroeder van der Kolk and
Vrolik, and that "all these able and conscientious observers" have
testified to the accuracy of his statements, "while not a single
anatomist, great or small, has supported Professor Owen." He sums up the
case once more, and concludes: "The question has thus become one of
personal veracity. For myself I will accept no other issue than this,
grave as it is, to the present controversy.") (which is capitally clear),
and then I saw that my suspicion was true that he has entirely changed his
ground to size of Brain. How candid he shows himself to have taken the
slipped Brain! (164/6. Owen in the "Athenaeum," February 21st, 1863,
admits that in the brain which he used in illustration of his statements
"the cerebral hemispheres had glided forward and apart behind so as to
expose a portion of the cerebellum.") I am intensely curious to see
whether Lyell will answer. (164/7. Lyell's answer was in the "Athenaeum"
March 7th, 1863.) Lyell has been, I fear, rather rash to enter on a
subject on which he of course knows nothing by himself. By heavens, Owen
will shake himself, when he sees what an antagonist he has made for
himself in you. With hearty admiration, Farewell.

I am fearfully disappointed at Lyell's excessive caution (164/8. In the
"Antiquity of Man": see "Life and Letters," III., page 8.) in expressing
any judgment on Species or {on the} origin of Man.

LETTER 165. TO JOHN SCOTT. Down, March 6th, 1863.

I thank you for your criticisms on the "Origin," and which I have not time
to discuss; but I cannot help doubting, from your expression of an
"INNATE...selective principle," whether you fully comprehend what is meant
by Natural Selection. Certainly when you speak of weaker (i.e. less well
adapted) forms crossing with the stronger, you take a widely different
view from what I do on the struggle for existence; for such weaker forms
could not exist except by the rarest chance. With respect to utility,
reflect that 99/100ths part of the structure of each being is due to
inheritance of formerly useful structures. Pray read what I have said on
"correlation." Orchids ought to show us how ignorant we are of what is
useful. No doubt hundreds of cases could be advanced of which no
explanation could be offered; but I must stop. Your letter has interested
me much. I am very far from strong, and have great fear that I must stop
all work for a couple of months for entire rest, and leave home. It will
be ruin to all my work.

LETTER 166. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 23rd {1863}.

The more I think of Falconer's letter (166/1. Published in the "Athenaeum"
April 4th, 1863, page 459. The writer asserts that Lyell did not make it
clear that certain material made use of in the "Antiquity of Man" was
supplied by the original work of Mr. Prestwich and himself. (See "Life and
Letters," III., page 19.)) the more grieved I am; he and Prestwich (the
latter at least must owe much to the "Principles") assume an absurdly
unwarrantable position with respect to Lyell. It is too bad to treat an
old hero in science thus. I can see from a note from Falconer (about a
wonderful fossil Brazilian Mammal, well called Meso- or Typo-therium) that
he expects no sympathy from me. He will end, I hope, by being sorry. Lyell
lays himself open to a slap by saying that he would come to show his
original observations, and then not distinctly doing so; he had better
only have laid claim, on this one point of man, to verification and
compilation.

Altogether, I much like Lyell's letter. But all this squabbling will
greatly sink scientific men. I have seen a sneer already in the "Times."

You will have received before this the note which I addressed to
Leicester, after finishing Volume I., and you will have received copies of
my little review (167/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1863, page 219. A review of
Bates' paper on Mimetic Butterflies.) of your paper...I have now finished
Volume II., and my opinion remains the same—that you have written a
truly admirable work (167/2. "The Naturalist on the Amazons," 1863.), with
capital original remarks, first-rate descriptions, and the whole in a
style which could not be improved. My family are now reading the book, and
admire it extremely; and, as my wife remarks, it has so strong an air of
truthfulness. I had a letter from a person the other day, unknown to you,
full of praise of the book. I do hope it may get extensively heard of and
circulated; but to a certain extent this, I think, always depends on
chance.

I suppose the clicking noise of surprise made by the Indian is that which
the end of the tongue, applied to the palate of the mouth and suddenly
withdrawn, makes?

I have not written since receiving your note of April 20th, in which you
confided in me and told me your prospects. I heartily wish they were
better, and especially more certain; but with your abilities and powers of
writing it will be strange if you cannot add what little you require for
your income. I am glad that you have got a retired and semi-rural
situation. What a grand ending you give to your book, contrasting
civilisation and wild life! I quite regret that I have finished it: every
evening it was a real treat to me to have my half-hour in the grand
Amazonian forest, and picture to myself your vivid descriptions. There are
heaps of facts of value to me in a natural history point of view. It was a
great misfortune that you were prevented giving the discussion on species.
But you will, I hope, be able to give your views and facts somewhere else.

LETTER 168. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 15th {1863}.

Your letter received this morning interested me more than even most of
your letters, and that is saying a good deal. I must scribble a little on
several points. About Lyell and species—you put the whole case, I do
believe, when you say that he is "half-hearted and whole-headed." (168/1.
Darwin's disappointment with the cautious point of view taken up by Lyell
in the "Antiquity of Man" is illustrated in the "Life and Letters," III.,
pages 11, 13. See also Letter 164, page 239.) I wrote to A. Gray that,
when I saw such men as Lyell and he refuse to judge, it put me in despair,
and that I sometimes thought I should prefer that Lyell had judged against
modification of species rather than profess inability to decide; and I
left him to apply this to himself. I am heartily rejoiced to hear that you
intend to try to bring L. and F. (168/2. Falconer claimed that Lyell had
not "done justice to the part he took in resuscitating the cave question."
See "Life and Letters," III., page 14.) together again; but had you not
better wait till they are a little cooled? You will do Science a real good
service. Falconer never forgave Lyell for taking the Purbeck bones from
him and handing them over to Owen.

With respect to island floras, if I understand rightly, we differ almost
solely how plants first got there. I suppose that at long intervals, from
as far back as later Tertiary periods to the present time, plants
occasionally arrived (in some cases, perhaps, aided by different currents
from existing currents and by former islands), and that these old arrivals
have survived little modified on the islands, but have become greatly
modified or become extinct on the continent. If I understand, you believe
that all islands were formerly united to continents, and then received all
their plants and none since; and that on the islands they have undergone
less extinction and modification than on the continent. The number of
animal forms on islands, very closely allied to those on continents, with
a few extremely distinct and anomalous, does not seem to me well to
harmonise with your supposed view of all having formerly arrived or rather
having been left together on the island.

LETTER 169. TO ASA GRAY. Down, May 31st {1863?}.

I was very glad to receive your review (169/1. The review on De Candolle's
work on the Oaks (A. Gray's "Scientific Papers," I., page 130).) of De
Candolle a week ago. It seems to me excellent, and you speak out, I think,
more plainly in favour of derivation of species than hitherto, though
doubtfully about Natural Selection. Grant the first, I am easy about the
second. Do you not consider such cases as all the orchids next thing to a
demonstration against Heer's view of species arising suddenly by
monstrosities?—it is impossible to imagine so many co-adaptations
being formed all by a chance blow. Of course creationists would cut the
enigma.

LETTER 170. TO T.H. HUXLEY. June 27th {1863?}

What are you doing now? I have never yet got hold of the "Edinburgh
Review," in which I hear you are well abused. By the way, I heard lately
from Asa Gray that Wyman was delighted at "Man's Place." (170/1. "Evidence
as to Man's Place in Nature," by T.H. Huxley, 1863.) I wonder who it is
who pitches weakly, but virulently into you, in the "Anthropological
Review." How quiet Owen seems! I do at last begin to believe that he will
ultimately fall in public estimation. What nonsense he wrote in the
"Athenaeum" (170/2. "Athenaeum," March 28th, 1863. See "Life and Letters,"
III., page 17.) on Heterogeny! I saw in his Aye-Aye (170/3. See Owen in
the "Trans. Zool. Soc." Volume V. The sentence referred to seems to be the
following (page 95): "We know of no changes in progress in the Island of
Madagascar, necessitating a special quest of wood-boring larvae by small
quadrupeds of the Lemurine or Sciurine types of organisation.') paper (I
think) that he sneers at the manner in which he supposes that we should
account for the structure of its limbs; and asks how we know that certain
insects had increased in the Madagascar forests. Would it not be a good
rebuff to ask him how he knows there were trees at all on the leafless
plains of La Plata for his Mylodons to tear down? But I must stop, for if
I once begin about {him} there will be no end. I was disappointed in the
part about species in Lyell. (170/4. Lyell's "Antiquity of Man." See "Life
and Letters," III., page 11.) You and Hooker are the only two bold men. I
have had a bad spring and summer, almost constantly very unwell; but I am
crawling on in my book on "Variation under Domestication.")

LETTER 171. TO C. LYELL. Down, August 14th {1863}.

Have you seen Bentham's remarks on species in his address to the Linnean
Society? (171/1. Presidential address before the Linnean Society by G.
Bentham ("Journ. Proc. Linn. Soc." Volume VII., page xi., 1864).) they
have pleased me more than anything I have read for some time. I have no
news, for I have not seen a soul for months, and have had a bad spring and
summer, but have managed to do a good deal of work. Emma is threatening me
to take me to Malvern, and perhaps I shall be compelled, but it is a
horrid waste of time; you must have enjoyed North Wales, I should think,
it is to me a most glorious country...

If you have not read Bates' book (171/2. Henry Walter Bates, "The
Naturalist on the River Amazons," 2 volumes, London, 1863. In a letter to
Bates, April 18th, 1863, Darwin writes, "It is the best work of natural
history travels ever published in England" ("Life and Letters," II., page
381.), I think it would interest you. He is second only to Humboldt in
describing a tropical forest. (171/3. Quoted in "Life and Letters," II.,
page 381.). Talking of reading, I have never got the "Edinburgh" (171/4.
The "Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man," by Sir Charles Lyell,
and works by other authors reviewed in the "Edinburgh Review." Volume
CXVIII., July 1863. The writer sums up his criticism as follows: "Glancing
at the work of Sir Charles Lyell as a whole, it leaves the impression on
our minds that we have been reading an ingenious academical thesis, rather
than a work of demonstration by an original writer...There is no argument
in it, and only a few facts which have not been stated elsewhere by Sir C.
Lyell himself or by others" (loc. cit., page 294).), in which, I suppose,
you are cut up.

LETTER 172. TO H. FALCONER. December 26th {1863}.

Thank you for telling me about the Pliocene mammal, which is very
remarkable; but has not Owen stated that the Pliocene badger is identical
with the recent? Such a case does indeed well show the stupendous duration
of the same form. I have not heard of Suess' pamphlet (172/1. Probably
Suess's paper "Ueber die Verschiedenheit und die Aufeinanderfolge der
tertiaren Land-faunen in der Niederung von Wien." "Sitz.-Ber. Wien Akad."
XLVII., page 306, 1863.), and should much like to learn the title, if it
can be procured; but I am on different subjects just at present. I should
rather like to see it rendered highly probable that the process of
formation of a new species was short compared to its duration—that
is, if the process was allowed to be slow and long; the idea is new to me.
Heer's view that new species are suddenly formed like monsters, I feel a
conviction from many reasons is false.

CHAPTER 1.IV.—EVOLUTION, 1864-1869.

LETTER 173. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 1st, 1864.

I am still unable to write otherwise than by dictation. In a letter
received two or three weeks ago from Asa Gray he writes: "I read lately
with gusto Wallace's expose of the Dublin man on Bees' cells, etc."
(173/1. "Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's paper on the Bee's Cell and on
the Origin of Species" ("Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist." XII., 1863, page 303).
Prof. Haughton's paper was read before the Natural History Society of
Dublin, November 21st, 1862, and reprinted in the "Ann. and Mag. Nat.
Hist." XI., 1863, page 415. See Letters 73, 74, 75.) Now, though I cannot
read at present, I much want to know where this is published, that I may
procure a copy. Further on, Asa Gray says (after speaking of Agassiz's
paper on Glaciers in the "Atlantic Magazine" and his recent book entitled
"Method of Study"): "Pray set Wallace upon these articles." So Asa Gray
seems to think much of your powers of reviewing, and I mention this as it
assuredly is laudari a laudato. I hope you are hard at work, and if you
are inclined to tell me, I should much like to know what you are doing. It
will be many months, I fear, before I shall do anything.

LETTER 174. TO J.L.A. DE QUATREFAGES. Down, March 27th {1864?}.

I had heard that your work was to be translated, and I heard it with
pleasure; but I can take no share of credit, for I am not an active, only
an honorary member of the Society. Since writing I have finished with
extreme interest to the end your admirable work on metamorphosis. (174/1.
Probably "Metamorphoses of Man and the Lower Animals." Translated by H.
Lawson, 1864.) How well you are acquainted with the works of English
naturalists, and how generously you bestow honour on them! Mr. Lubbock is
my neighbour, and I have known him since he was a little boy; he is in
every way a thoroughly good man; as is my friend Huxley. It gave me real
pleasure to see you notice their works as you have done.

LETTER 175. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 11th {1864}.

I am very much obliged for your present of your "Comp. Anatomy." (175/1.
"Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy," 1864.) When strong
enough I am sure I shall read it with greatest interest. I could not
resist the last chapter, of which I have read a part, and have been much
interested about the "inspired idiot." (175/2. In reference to Oken (op.
cit., page 282) Huxley says: "I must confess I never read his works
without thinking of the epithet of 'inspired idiot' applied to our own
Goldsmith.") If Owen wrote the article "Oken" (175/3. The article on Oken
in the eighth edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is signed "R.O.":
Huxley wrote to Darwin (April 18th, 1864), "There is not the smallest
question that Owen wrote both the article 'Oken' and the 'Archetype' Book"
(Huxley's "Life," I., page 250). Mr. Huxley's statements amount to this:
(1) Prof. Owen accuses Goethe of having in 1820 appropriated Oken's theory
of the skull, and of having given an apocryphal account of how the idea
occurred to himself in 1790. (2) in the same article, page 502, Owen
stated it to be questionable whether the discoverer of the true theory of
the segmental constitution of the skull (i.e. himself) was excited to his
labours, or "in any way influenced by the a priori guesses of Oken." On
this Huxley writes, page 288: "But if he himself had not been in any way
influenced by Oken, and if the 'Programm' {of Oken} is a mere mass of 'a
priori guesses,' how comes it that only three years before Mr. Owen could
write thus? 'Oken, ce genie profond et penetrant, fut le premier qui
entrevit la verite, guide par l'heureuse idee de l'arrangement des os
craniens en segments, comme ceux du rachis, appeles vertebres...'" Later
on Owen wrote: "Cela servira pour exemple d'une examen scrupuleux des
faits, d'une appreciation philosophique de leurs relations et analogies,
etc." (From "Principes d'Osteologie comparee, ou Recherches sur
l'Archetype," etc., pages 155, 1855). (3) Finally Huxley says, page 289,
plainly: "The fact is that, so far from not having been 'in any way
influenced' by Oken, Prof. Owen's own contributions to this question are
the merest Okenism, remanie.") and the French work on the Archetype
(points you do not put quite clearly), he never did a baser act...You are
so good a Christian that you will hardly understand how I chuckle over
this bit of baseness. I hope you keep well and hearty; I honour your
wisdom at giving up at present Society for Science. But, on the other
hand, I feel it in myself possible to get to care too much for Natural
Science and too little for other things. I am getting better, I almost
dare to hope permanently; for my sickness is decidedly less—for
twenty-seven days consecutively I was sick many times daily, and lately I
was five days free. I long to do a little work again. The magnificent (by
far the most magnificent, and too magnificent) compliment which you paid
me at the end of your "Origin of Species" (175/4. A title applied to the
"Lectures to Working Men," that "green little book" referred to in Letter
156. Speaking of Mr. Darwin's work he says (page 156): "I believe that if
you strip it of its theoretical part, it still remains one of the greatest
encyclopaedias of biological doctrine that any one man ever brought forth;
and I believe that, if you take it as the embodiment of an hypothesis, it
is destined to be the guide of biological and psychological speculation
for the next three or four generations.') I have met with reprinted from
you two or three times lately.

LETTER 175A. TO ERASMUS DARWIN. Down, June 30th, 1864.

(175A.1. The preceding letter contains a reference to the prolonged period
of ill-health which Darwin suffered in 1863 and 1864, and in this
connection the present letter is of interest.

The Copley Medal was given to him in 1864.)

I had not heard a word about the Copley Medal. Please give Falconer my
cordial thanks for his interest about me. I enclose the list of everything
published by me except a few unimportant papers. Ask Falconer not to
mention that I sent the list, as some one might say I had been canvassing,
which is an odious imputation. The origin of the Voyage in the "Beagle"
was that Fitz-Roy generously offered to give up half his cabin to any one
who would volunteer to go as naturalist. Beaufort wrote to Cambridge, and
I volunteered. Fitz-Roy never persuaded me to give up the voyage on
account of sickness, nor did I ever think of doing so, though I suffered
considerably; but I do not believe it was the cause of my subsequent
ill-health, which has lost me so many years, and therefore I should not
think the sea-sickness was worth notice. It would save you trouble to
forward this with my kindest remembrances to Falconer.

(176/1. The following letter was the beginning of a correspondence with
Mr. B.D. Walsh, whom C.V. Riley describes as "one of the ablest and most
thorough entomologists of our time.")

(176/2. The words in square brackets are restorations of parts torn off
the original letter.)

More than thirty years ago I was introduced to you at your rooms in
Christ's College by A.W. Grisebach, and had the pleasure of seeing your
noble collection of British Coleoptera. Some years afterwards I became a
Fellow of Trinity, and finally gave up my Fellowship rather than go into
Orders, and came to this country. For the last five or six years I have
been paying considerable attention to the insect fauna of the U.S., some
of the fruits of which you will see in the enclosed pamphlets. Allow me to
take this opportunity of thanking you for the publication of your "Origin
of Species," which I read three years ago by the advice of a botanical
friend, though I had a strong prejudice against what I supposed then to be
your views. The first perusal staggered me, the second convinced me, and
the oftener I read it the more convinced I am of the general soundness of
your theory.

As you have called upon naturalists that believe in your views to give
public testimony of their convictions, I have directed your attention on
the outside of one or two of my pamphlets to the particular passages in
which {I} have done so. You will please accept these papers from me in
token of my respect and admiration.

As you may see from the latest of these papers, I {have} recently made the
remarkable discover that there {are the} so-called "three sexes" not only
in social insects but {also in the} strictly solitary genus Cynips.

When is your great work to make its appearance? {I should be} much pleased
to receive a few lines from you.

LETTER 177. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, October 21st {1864}.

Ill-health has prevented me from sooner thanking you for your very kind
letter and several memoirs.

I have been very much pleased to see how boldly and clearly you speak out
on the modification of species. I thank you for giving me the pages of
reference; but they were superfluous, for I found so many original and
profound remarks that I have carefully looked through all the papers. I
hope that your discovery about the Cynips (177/1. "On Dimorphism in the
hymenopterous genus Cynips," "Proc. Entom. Soc. Philadelphia," March,
1864. Mr. Walsh's view is that Cynips quercus aciculata is a dimorphous
form of Cynips q. spongifica, and occurs only as a female. Cynips q.
spongifica also produces spongifica females and males from other galls at
a different time of year.) will hold good, for it is a remarkable one, and
I for one have often marvelled what could be the meaning of the case. I
will lend your paper to my neighbour Mr. Lubbock, who I know is much
interested in the subject. Incidentally I shall profit by your remarks on
galls. If you have time I think a rather hopeless experiment would be
worth trying; anyhow, I should have tried it had my health permitted. It
is to insert a minute grain of some organic substance, together with the
poison from bees, sand-wasps, ichneumons, adders, and even alkaloid
poisons into the tissues of fitting plants for the chance of monstrous
growths being produced. (177/2. See "Life and Letters," III., page 346,
for an account of experiments attempted in this direction by Mr. Darwin in
1880. On the effects of injuring plant-tissues, see Massart, "La
Cicatrisation, etc." in Tome LVII. of the "Memoires Couronnes" of the
Brussels Academy.)

My health has long been poor, and I have lately suffered from a long
illness which has interrupted all work, but I am now recommencing a volume
in connection with the "Origin."

P.S.—If you write again I should very much like to hear what your
life in your new country is.

What can be the meaning or use of the great diversity of the external
generative organs in your cases, in Bombus, and the phytophagous
coleoptera?

What can there be in the act of copulation necessitating such complex and
diversified apparatus?

LETTER 178. TO W.H. FLOWER. Down, July 11th, 1864.

I am truly obliged for all the trouble which you have taken for me, and
for your very interesting note. I had only vaguely heard it said that
frogs had a rudiment of a sixth toe; had I known that such great men had
looked to the point I should not have dreamed of looking myself. The
rudiment sent to you was from a full-grown frog; so that if these bones
are the two cuneiforms they must, I should think, be considered to be in a
rudimentary condition. This afternoon my gardener brought in some tadpoles
with the hind-legs alone developed, and I looked at the rudiment. At this
age it certainly looks extremely like a digit, for the extremity is
enlarged like that of the adjoining real toe, and the transverse
articulation seems similar. I am sorry that the case is doubtful, for if
these batrachians had six toes, I certainly think it would have thrown
light on the truly extraordinary strength of inheritance in polydactylism
in so many animals, and especially on the power of regeneration in
amputated supernumerary digits. (178/1. In the first edition of "Variation
under Domestication" the view here given is upheld, but in the second
edition (Volume I., page 459) Darwin withdrew his belief that the
development of supernumerary digits in man is "a case of reversion to a
lowly-organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." See
Letters 161, 270.)

LETTER 179. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down {October 22nd, 1864}.

The Lyells have been here, and were extremely pleasant, but I saw them
only occasionally for ten minutes, and when they went I had an awful day
{of illness}; but I am now slowly getting up to my former standard. I
shall soon be confined to a living grave, and a fearful evil it is.

I suppose you have read Tyndall. (179/1. Probably Tyndall "On the
Conformation of the Alps" ("Phil. Mag." 1864, page 255).) I have now come
round again to Ramsay's view, (179/2. "Phil. Mag." 1864, page 293.) for
the third or fourth time; but Lyell says when I read his discussion in the
"Elements," I shall recant for the fifth time. (179/3. This refers to a
discussion on the "Connection of the predominance of Lakes with Glacial
Action" ("Elements," Edition VI., pages 168-74). Lyell adheres to the
views expressed in the "Antiquity of Man" (1863) against Ramsay's theory
of the origin of lake basins by ice action.) What a capital writer Tyndall
is!

In your last note you ask what the Bardfield oxlip is. It is P. elatior of
Jacq., which certainly looks, when growing, to common eyes different from
the common oxlip. I will fight you to the death that as primrose and
cowslip are different in appearance (not to mention odour, habitat and
range), and as I can now show that, when they cross, the intermediate
offspring are sterile like ordinary hybrids, they must be called as good
species as a man and a gorilla.

I agree that if Scott's red cowslip grew wild or spread itself and did not
vary {into} common cowslip (and we have absolutely no proof of primrose or
cowslip varying into each other), and as it will not cross with the
cowslip, it would be a perfectly good species. The power of remaining for
a good long period constant I look at as the essence of a species,
combined with an appreciable amount of difference; and no one can say
there is not this amount of difference between primrose and oxlip.

(PLATE: HUGH FALCONER, 1844. From a photograph by Hill & Adamson.)

LETTER 180. HUGH FALCONER TO W. SHARPEY.

(180/1. Falconer had proposed Darwin for the Copley Medal of the Royal
Society (which was awarded to him in 1864), but being detained abroad, he
gave his reasons for supporting Darwin for this honour in a letter to
Sharpey, the Secretary of the Royal Society. A copy of the letter here
printed seems to have been given to Erasmus Darwin, and by him shown to
his brother Charles.)

Montauban, October 25th, 1864.

Busk and myself have made every effort to be back in London by the 27th
inst., but we have been persecuted by mishaps—through the breakdown
of trains, diligences, etc., so that we have been sadly put out in our
reckoning—and have lost some of the main objects that brought us
round by this part of France—none of which were idle or unimportant.

Busk started yesterday for Paris from Bruniquel, to make sure of being
present at the meeting of the Royal Council on Thursday. He will tell you
that there were strong reasons for me remaining behind him. But as I
seconded the proposal of Mr. Darwin for the Copley Medal, in default of my
presence at the first meeting, I beg that you will express my great
regrets to the President and Council at not being there, and that I am
very reluctantly detained. I shall certainly be in London (D.V.) by the
second meeting on the 3rd proximo. Meanwhile I solicit the favour of being
heard, through you, respecting the grounds upon which I seconded Mr.
Darwin's nomination for the Copley Medal.

Referring to the classified list which I drew up of Mr. Darwin's
scientific labours, ranging through the wide field of (1) Geology, (2)
Physical Geography, (3) Zoology, (4) physiological Botany, (5) genetic
Biology, and to the power with which he has investigated whatever subject
he has taken up,—Nullum quod tetigit non ornavit,—I am of
opinion that Mr. Darwin is not only one of the most eminent naturalists of
his day, but that hereafter he will be regarded as one of the great
naturalists of all countries and of all time. His early work on the
structure and distribution of coral reefs constitutes an era in the
investigation of the subject. As a monographic labour, it may be compared
with Dr. Wells' "Essay upon Dew," as original, exhaustive, and complete—containing
the closest observation with large and important generalisations.

Among the zoologists his monographs upon the Balanidae and Lepadidae,
Fossil and Recent, in the Palaeontographical and Ray Societies'
publications, are held to be models of their kind.

In physiological Botany, his recent researches upon the dimorphism of the
genital organs in certain plants, embodied in his papers in the "Linnean
Journal," on Primula, Linum, and Lythrum, are of the highest order of
importance. They open a new mine of observation upon a field which had
been barely struck upon before. The same remark applies to his researches
on the structure and various adaptations of the orchideous flower to a
definite object connected with impregnation of the plants through the
agency of insects with foreign pollen. There has not yet been time for
their due influence being felt in the advancement of the science. But in
either subject they constitute an advance per saltum. I need not dwell
upon the value of his geological researches, which won for him one of the
earlier awards of the Wollaston Medal from the Geological Society, the
best of judges on the point.

And lastly, Mr. Darwin's great essay on the "Origin of Species" by Natural
Selection. This solemn and mysterious subject had been either so lightly
or so grotesquely treated before, that it was hardly regarded as being
within the bounds of legitimate philosophical investigation. Mr. Darwin,
after twenty years of the closest study and research, published his views,
and it is sufficient to say that they instantly fixed the attention of
mankind throughout the civilised world. That the efforts of a single mind
should have arrived at success on a subject of such vast scope, and
encompassed with such difficulties, was more than could have been
reasonably expected, and I am far from thinking that Charles Darwin has
made out all his case. But he has treated it with such power and in such a
philosophical and truth-seeking spirit, and illustrated it with such an
amount of original and collated observation as fairly to have brought the
subject within the bounds of rational scientific research. I consider this
great essay on genetic Biology to constitute a strong additional claim on
behalf of Mr. Darwin for the Copley Medal. (180/2. The following letter
(December 3rd, 1864), from Mr. Huxley to Sir J.D. Hooker, is reprinted, by
the kind permission of Mr. L. Huxley, from his father's "Life," I., page
255. Sabine's address (from the "Reader") is given in the "Life and
Letters," III., page 28. In the "Proceedings of the Royal Society" the
offending sentence is slightly modified. It is said, in Huxley's "Life"
(loc. cit., note), that the sentence which follows it was introduced to
mitigate the effect:—

"I wish you had been at the anniversary meeting and dinner, because the
latter was very pleasant, and the former, to me, very disagreeable. My
distrust of Sabine is, as you know, chronic; and I went determined to keep
careful watch on his address, lest some crafty phrase injurious to Darwin
should be introduced. My suspicions were justified, the only part of the
address {relating} to Darwin written by Sabine himself containing the
following passage:

"'Speaking generally and collectively, we have expressly omitted it
{Darwin's theory} from the grounds of our award.'

"Of course this would be interpreted by everybody as meaning that after
due discussion, the council had formally resolved not only to exclude
Darwin's theory from the grounds of the award, but to give public notice
through the president that they had done so, and, furthermore, that
Darwin's friends had been base enough to accept an honour for him on the
understanding that in receiving it he should be publicly insulted!

"I felt that this would never do, and therefore, when the resolution for
printing the address was moved, I made a speech, which I took care to keep
perfectly cool and temperate, disavowing all intention of interfering with
the liberty of the president to say what he pleased, but exercising my
constitutional right of requiring the minutes of council making the award
to be read, in order that the Society might be informed whether the
conditions implied by Sabine had been imposed or not.

"The resolution was read, and of course nothing of the kind appeared.
Sabine didn't exactly like it, I believe. Both Busk and Falconer
remonstrated against the passage to him, and I hope it will be withdrawn
when the address is printed. If not, there will be an awful row, and I for
one will show no mercy.")

In forming an estimate of the value and extent of Mr. Darwin's researches,
due regard ought to be had to the circumstances under which they have been
carried out—a pressure of unremitting disease, which has latterly
left him not more than one or two hours of the day which he could call his
own.

LETTER 181. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 4th {1864}.

What a good kind friend you are! I know well that this medal must have
cost you a deal of trouble. It is a very great honour to me, but I declare
the knowledge that you and a few other friends have interested themselves
on the subject is the real cream of the enjoyment to me; indeed, it is to
me worth far more than many medals. So accept my true and cordial thanks.
I hope that I may yet have strength to do a little more work in Natural
Science, shaky and old though I be. I have chuckled and triumphed over
your postscript about poor M. Brulle and his young pupils (181/1. The
following is the postscript in a letter from Falconer to Darwin November
3rd {1864}: "I returned last night from Spain via France. On Monday I was
at Dijon, where, while in the Museum, M. Brulle, Professor of Zoology,
asked me what was my frank opinion of Charles Darwin's doctrine? He told
me in despair that he could not get his pupils to listen to anything from
him except a la Darwin! He, poor man, could not comprehend it, and was
still unconvinced, but that all young Frenchmen would hear or believe
nothing else.") About a week ago I had a nearly similar account from
Germany, and at the same time I heard of some splendid converts in such
men as Leuckart, Gegenbauer, etc. You may say what you like about
yourself, but I look at a man who treats natural history in the same
spirit with which you do, exactly as good, for what I believe to be the
truth, as a convert.

LETTER 182. TO HUGH FALCONER. Down, November 8th {1864}.

Your remark on the relation of the award of the medal and the present
outburst of bigotry had not occurred to me. It seems very true, and makes
me the more gratified to receive it. General Sabine (182/1. See "Life and
Letters," III., page 28.) wrote to me and asked me to attend at the
anniversary, but I told him it was really impossible. I have never been
able to conjecture the cause; but I find that on my good days, when I can
write for a couple of hours, that anything which stirs me up like talking
for half or even a quarter of an hour, generally quite prostrates me,
sometimes even for a long time afterwards. I believe attending the
anniversary would possibly make me seriously ill. I should enjoy attending
and shaking you and a few of my other friends by the hand, but it would be
folly even if I did not break down at the time. I told Sabine that I did
not know who had proposed and seconded me for the medal, but that I
presumed it was you, or Hooker or Busk, and that I felt sure, if you
attended, you would receive the medal for me; and that if none of you
attended, that Lyell or Huxley would receive it for me. Will you receive
it, and it could be left at my brother's?

Again accept my cordial and enduring thanks for all your kindness and
sympathy.

LETTER 183. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, December 4th {1864}.

I have been greatly interested by your account of your American life. What
an extraordinary and self-contained life you have led! and what vigour of
mind you must possess to follow science with so much ardour after all that
you have undergone! I am very much obliged to you for your pamphlet on
Geographical Distribution, on Agassiz, etc. (183/1. Mr. Walsh's paper "On
certain Entomological Speculations of the New England School of
Entomologists" was published in the "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. of
Philadelphia," September 1864, page 207.) I am delighted at the manner in
which you have bearded this lion in his den. I agree most entirely with
all that you have written. What I meant when I wrote to Agassiz to thank
him for a bundle of his publications, was exactly what you suppose.
(183/2. Namely, that Mr. Darwin, having been abused as an atheist, etc.,
by other writers, probably felt grateful to a writer who was willing to
allow him "a spirit as reverential as his own." ("Methods of Study,"
Preface, page iv.) I confess, however, I did not fully perceive how he had
misstated my views; but I only skimmed through his "Methods of Study," and
thought it a very poor book. I am so much accustomed to be utterly
misrepresented that it hardly excites my attention. But you really have
hit the nail on the head capitally. All the younger good naturalists whom
I know think of Agassiz as you do; but he did grand service about glaciers
and fish. About the succession of forms, Pictet has given up his whole
views, and no geologist now agrees with Agassiz. I am glad that you have
attacked Dana's wild notions; {though} I have a great respect for
Dana...If you have an opportunity, read in "Trans. Linn. Soc." Bates on
"Mimetic Lepidoptera of Amazons." I was delighted with his paper.

I have got a notice of your views about the female Cynips inserted in the
"Natural History Review" (183/3. "Nat. Hist. Review," January 1865, page
139. A notice by "J.L." (probably Lord Avebury) on Walsh's paper "On
Dimorphism in the Hymenopterous Genus Cynips," in the "Proc. Entomolog.
Soc. of Philadelphia," March, 1864.): whether the notice will be
favourable, I do not know, but anyhow it will call attention to your
views...

As you allude in your paper to the believers in change of species, you
will be glad to hear that very many of the very best men are coming round
in Germany. I have lately heard of Hackel, Gegenbauer, F. Muller,
Leuckart, Claparede, Alex. Braun, Schleiden, etc. So it is, I hear, with
the younger Frenchmen.

LETTER 184. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 19th {1865}.

It is working hours, but I am trying to take a day's holiday, for I
finished and despatched yesterday my Climbing paper. For the last ten days
I have done nothing but correct refractory sentences, and I loathe the
whole subject like tartar emetic. By the way, I am convinced that you want
a holiday, and I think so because you took the devil's name in vain so
often in your last note. Can you come here for Sunday? You know how I
should like it, and you will be quiet and dull enough here to get plenty
of rest. I have been thinking with regret about what you said in one of
your later notes, about having neglected to make notes on the gradation of
character in your genera; but would it be too late? Surely if you looked
over names in series the facts would come back, and you might surely write
a fine paper "On the gradation of important characters in the genera of
plants." As for unimportant characters, I have made their perfect
gradation a very prominent point with respect to the means of climbing, in
my paper. I begin to think that one of the commonest means of transition
is the same individual plant having the same part in different states:
thus Corydalis claviculata, if you look to one leaf, may be called a
tendril-bearer; if you look to another leaf it may be called a
leaf-climber. Now I am sure I remember some cases with plants in which
important parts such as the position of the ovule differ: differences in
the spire of leaves on lateral and terminal branches, etc.

There was not much in last "Natural History Review" which interested me
except colonial floras (184/1. "Nat. Hist. Review," 1865, page 46. A
review of Grisebach's "Flora of the British West Indian Islands" and
Thwaites' "Enumeratio Plantarum Zeylaniae." The point referred to is given
at page 57: "More than half the Flowering Plants belong to eleven Orders
in the case of the West Indies, and to ten in that of Ceylon, whilst with
but one exception the Ceylon Orders are the same as the West Indian." The
reviewer speculates on the meaning of the fact "in relation to the
hypothesis of an intertropical cold epoch, such as Mr. Darwin demands for
the migration of the Northern Flora to the Southern hemisphere.") and the
report on the sexuality of cryptogams. I suppose the former was by Oliver;
how extremely curious is the fact of similarity of Orders in the Tropics!
I feel a conviction that it is somehow connected with Glacial destruction,
but I cannot "wriggle" comfortably at all on the subject. I am nearly sure
that Dana makes out that the greatest number of crustacean forms inhabit
warmer temperate regions.

I have had an enormous letter from Leo Lesquereux (after doubts, I did not
think it worth sending you) on Coal Flora: he wrote some excellent
articles in "Silliman" again {my} "Origin" views; but he says now after
repeated reading of the book he is a convert! But how funny men's minds
are! he says he is chiefly converted because my books make the Birth of
Christ, Redemption by Grace, etc., plain to him!

LETTER 185. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, February 9th {1865}.

I quite agree how humiliating the slow progress of man is, but every one
has his own pet horror, and this slow progress or even personal
annihilation sinks in my mind into insignificance compared with the idea
or rather I presume certainty of the sun some day cooling and we all
freezing. To think of the progress of millions of years, with every
continent swarming with good and enlightened men, all ending in this, and
with probably no fresh start until this our planetary system has been
again converted into red-hot gas. Sic transit gloria mundi, with a
vengeance...

LETTER 186. TO B.D. WALSH. Down, March 27th {1865}.

I have been much interested by your letter. I received your former paper
on Phytophagic variety (186/1. For "Phytophagic Varieties and Phytophagic
Species" see "Proc. Entomolog. Soc. Philadelphia," November 1864, page
403, also December 1865. The part on gradation is summarised at pages 427,
428. Walsh shows that a complete gradation exists between species which
are absolutely unaffected by change of food and cases where "difference of
food is accompanied by marked and constant differences, either
colorational, or structural, or both, in the larva, pupa and imago
states."), most of which was new to me. I have since received your paper
on willow-galls; this has been very opportune, as I wanted to learn a
little about galls. There was much in this paper which has interested me
extremely, on gradations, etc., and on your "unity of coloration." (186/2.
"Unity of coloration": this expression does not seem to occur in the paper
of November 1864, but is discussed at length in that of December 1865,
page 209.) This latter subject is nearly new to me, though I collected
many years ago some such cases with birds; but what struck me most was
when a bird genus inhabits two continents, the two sections sometimes
display a somewhat different type of colouring. I should like to hear
whether this does not occur with widely ranging insect-genera? You may
like to hear that Wichura (186/3. Max Wichura's "Die Bastarde befruchtung
im Pflanzenreich, etc:" Breslau 1865. A translation appeared in the
"Bibliotheque Universelle," xxiii., page 129: Geneva 1865.) has lately
published a book which has quite convinced me that in Europe there is a
multitude of spontaneous hybrid willows. Would it not be very interesting
to know how the gall-makers behaved with respect to these hybrids? Do you
think it likely that the ancestor of Cecidomyia acquired its poison like
gnats (which suck men) for no especial purpose (at least not for
gall-making)? Such notions make me wish that some one would try the
experiments suggested in my former letter. Is it not probable that
guest-flies were aboriginally gall-makers, and bear the same relation to
them which Apathus probably does to Bombus? (186/4. Apathus (= Psithyrus)
lives in the nests of Bombus. These insects are said to be so like humble
bees that "they were not distinguished from them by the early
entomologists:" Dr. Sharp in "Cambridge Nat. Hist. (Insects," Part II.),
page 59.) With respect to dimorphism, you may like to hear that Dr. Hooker
tells me that a dioecious parasitic plant allied to Rafflesia has its two
sexes parasitic on two distinct species of the same genus of plants; so
look out for some such case in the two forms of Cynips. I have posted to
you copies of my papers on dimorphism. Leersia (186/5. Leersia oryzoides
was for a long time thought to produce only cleistogamic and therefore
autogamous flowers. See "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II.,
Volume II., page 69.) does behave in a state of nature in the provoking
manner described by me. With respect to Wagner's curious discovery my
opinion is worth nothing; no doubt it is a great anomaly, but it does not
appear to me nearly so incredible as to you. Remember how allied forms in
the Hydrozoa differ in their so-called alternate generations; I follow
those naturalists who look at all such cases as forms of gemmation; and a
multitude of organisms have this power or traces of this power at all ages
from the germ to maturity. With respect to Agassiz's views, there were
many, and there are still not a few, who believe that the same species is
created on many spots. I wrote to Bates, and he will send you his mimetic
paper; and I dare say others: he is a first-rate man.

Your case of the wingless insects near the Rocky Mountains is extremely
curious. I am sure I have heard of some such case in the Old World: I
think on the Caucasus. Would not my argument about wingless insular
insects perhaps apply to truly Alpine insects? for would it not be
destruction to them to be blown from their proper home? I should like to
write on many points at greater length to you, but I have no strength to
spare.

LETTER 187. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, September 22nd {1865}.

I am much obliged for your extract (187/1. Mr. Wallace had sent Darwin a
note about a tufted cock-blackbird, which transmitted the character to
some of its offspring.); I never heard of such a case, though such a
variation is perhaps the most likely of any to occur in a state of nature,
and to be inherited, inasmuch as all domesticated birds present races with
a tuft or with reversed feathers on their heads. I have sometimes thought
that the progenitor of the whole class must have been a crested animal.

Do you make any progress with your journal of travels? I am the more
anxious that you should do so as I have lately read with much interest
some papers by you on the ourang-outan, etc., in the "Annals," of which I
have lately been reading the later volumes. I have always thought that
journals of this nature do considerable good by advancing the taste for
Natural History: I know in my own case that nothing ever stimulated my
zeal so much as reading Humboldt's "Personal Narrative." I have not yet
received the last part of the "Linnean Transactions," but your paper
(187/2. Probably on the variability and distribution of the butterflies of
the Malayan region: "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV., 1866.) at present will be
rather beyond my strength, for though somewhat better, I can as yet do
hardly anything but lie on the sofa and be read aloud to. By the way, have
you read Tylor and Lecky? (187/3. Tylor, "Early History of Mankind;"
Lecky's "Rationalism.") Both these books have interested me much. I
suppose you have read Lubbock. (187/4. Lubbock, "Prehistoric Times," page
479: "...the theory of Natural Selection, which with characteristic
unselfishness he ascribes unreservedly to Mr. Darwin.") In the last
chapter there is a note about you in which I most cordially concur. I see
you were at the British Association but I have heard nothing of it except
what I have picked up in the "Reader." I have heard a rumour that the
"Reader" is sold to the Anthropological Society. If you do not begrudge
the trouble of another note (for my sole channel of news through Hooker is
closed by his illness) I should much like to hear whether the "Reader" is
thus sold. I should be very sorry for it, as the paper would thus become
sectional in its tendency. If you write, tell me what you are doing
yourself. The only news which I have about the "Origin" is that Fritz
Muller published a few months ago a remarkable book (187/5. "Fur Darwin.")
in its favour, and secondly that a second French edition is just coming
out.

LETTER 188. TO F. MULLER. Down, January 11th {1866}.

I received your interesting letter of November 5th some little time ago,
and despatched immediately a copy of my "Journal of Researches." I fear
you will think me troublesome in my offer; but have you the second German
edition of the "Origin?" which is a translation, with additions, of the
third English edition, and is, I think, considerably improved compared
with the first edition. I have some spare copies which are of no use to
me, and it would be a pleasure to me to send you one, if it would be of
any use to you. You would never require to re-read the book, but you might
wish to refer to some passage. I am particularly obliged for your
photograph, for one likes to have a picture in one's mind of any one about
whom one is interested. I have received and read with interest your paper
on the sponge with horny spicula. (188/1. "Ueber Darwinella aurea, einen
Schwamm mit sternformigen Hornnadeln."—"Archiv. Mikrosk. Anat." I.,
page 57, 1866.) Owing to ill-health, and being busy when formerly well, I
have for some years neglected periodical scientific literature, and have
lately been reading up, and have thus read translations of several of your
papers; amongst which I have been particularly glad to read and see the
drawings of the metamorphoses of Peneus. (188/2. "On the Metamorphoses of
the Prawns," by Dr. Fritz Muller.—"Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume
XIV., page 104 (with plate), 1864. Translated by W.S. Dallas from
"Wiegmann's Archiv," 1863 (see also "Facts and Arguments for Darwin,"
passim, translated by W.S. Dallas: London, 1869).) This seems to me the
most interesting discovery in embryology which has been made for years.

I am much obliged to you for telling me a little of your plans for the
future; what a strange, but to my taste interesting life you will lead
when you retire to your estate on the Itajahy!

You refer in your letter to the facts which Agassiz is collecting, against
our views, on the Amazons. Though he has done so much for science, he
seems to me so wild and paradoxical in all his views that I cannot regard
his opinions as of any value.

LETTER 189. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 22nd, 1866.

I thank you for your paper on pigeons (189/1. "On the Pigeons of the Malay
Archipelago" (The "Ibis," October, 1865). Mr. Wallace points out (page
366) that "the most striking superabundance of pigeons, as well as of
parrots, is confined to the Australo-Malayan sub-region in which...the
forest-haunting and fruit-eating mammals, such as monkeys and squirrels,
are totally absent." He points out also that monkeys are "exceedingly
destructive to eggs and young birds."), which interested me, as everything
that you write does. Who would ever have dreamed that monkeys influenced
the distribution of pigeons and parrots! But I have had a still higher
satisfaction, for I finished your paper yesterday in the "Linnean
Transactions." (189/2. "Linn. Soc. Trans." XXV.: a paper on the
geographical distribution and variability of the Malayan Papilionidae.) It
is admirably done. I cannot conceive that the most firm believer in
species could read it without being staggered. Such papers will make many
more converts among naturalists than long-winded books such as I shall
write if I have strength. I have been particularly struck with your
remarks on dimorphism; but I cannot quite understand one point (page 22),
(189/3. The passage referred to in this letter as needing further
explanation is the following: "The last six cases of mimicry are
especially instructive, because they seem to indicate one of the processes
by which dimorphic forms have been produced. When, as in these cases, one
sex differs much from the other, and varies greatly itself, it may happen
that individual variations will occasionally occur, having a distant
resemblance to groups which are the objects of mimicry, and which it is
therefore advantageous to resemble. Such a variety will have a better
chance of preservation; the individuals possessing it will be multiplied;
and their accidental likeness to the favoured group will be rendered
permanent by hereditary transmission, and each successive variation which
increases the resemblance being preserved, and all variations departing
from the favoured type having less chance of preservation, there will in
time result those singular cases of two or more isolated and fixed forms
bound together by that intimate relationship which constitutes them the
sexes of a single species. The reason why the females are more subject to
this kind of modification than the males is, probably, that their slower
flight, when laden with eggs, and their exposure to attack while in the
act of depositing their eggs upon leaves, render it especially
advantageous for them to have some additional protection. This they at
once obtain by acquiring a resemblance to other species which, from
whatever cause, enjoy a comparative immunity from persecution." Mr.
Wallace has been good enough to give us the following note on the above
passage: "The above quotation deals solely with the question of how
certain females of the polymorphic species (Papilio Memnon, P. Pammon, and
others) have been so modified as to mimic species of a quite distinct
section of the genus; but it does not attempt to explain why or how the
other very variable types of female arose, and this was Darwin's
difficulty. As the letter I wrote in reply is lost, and as it is rather
difficult to explain the matter clearly without reference to the coloured
figures, I must go into some little detail, and give now what was probably
the explanation I gave at the time. The male of Papilio Memnon is a large
black butterfly with the nervures towards the margins of the wings
bordered with bluish gray dots. It is a forest insect, and the very dark
colour renders it conspicuous; but it is a strong flier, and thus
survives. To the female, however, this conspicuous mass of colour would be
dangerous, owing to her slower flight, and the necessity for continually
resting while depositing her eggs on the leaves of the food-plant of the
larva. She has accordingly acquired lighter and more varied tints. The
marginal gray-dotted stripes of the male have become of a brownish ash and
much wider on the fore wings, while the margin of the hind wings is
yellowish, with a more defined spot near the anal angle. This is the form
most nearly like the male, but it is comparatively rare, the more common
being much lighter in colour, the bluish gray of the hind wings being
often entirely replaced by a broad band of yellowish white. The anal angle
is orange-yellow, and there is a bright red spot at the base of the fore
wings. Between these two extremes there is every possible variation. Now,
it is quite certain that this varying mixture of brown, black, white,
yellow, and red is far less conspicuous amid the ever-changing hues of the
forest with their glints of sunshine everywhere penetrating so as to form
strong contrasts and patches of light and shade. Hence ALL the females—one
at one time and one at another—get SOME protection, and that is
sufficient to enable them to live long enough to lay their eggs, when
their work is finished. Still, under bad conditions they only just managed
to survive, and as the colouring of some of these varying females very
much resembled that of the protected butterflies of the P. coon group
(perhaps at a time when the tails of the latter were not fully developed)
any rudiments of a prolongation of the wing into a tail added to the
protective resemblance, and was therefore preserved. The woodcuts of some
of these forms in my "Malay Archipelago" (i., page 200) will enable those
who have this book at hand better to understand the foregoing
explanation."), and should be grateful for an explanation, for I want
fully to understand you. How can one female form be selected and the
intermediate forms die out, without also the other extreme form also dying
out from not having the advantages of the first selected form? for, as I
understand, both female forms occur on the same island. I quite agree with
your distinction between dimorphic forms and varieties; but I doubt
whether your criterion of dimorphic forms not producing intermediate
offspring will suffice, for I know of a good many varieties which must be
so called that will not blend or intermix, but produce offspring quite
like either parent.

I have been particularly struck with your remarks on geographical
distribution in Celebes. It is impossible that anything could be better
put, and would give a cold shudder to the immutable naturalists.

And now I am going to ask a question which you will not like. How does
your journal get on? It will be a shame if you do not popularise your
researches.

I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of numbers of
intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, the self-acting and
necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the
term itself, and your mode of illustrating it, however clear and beautiful
to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general
naturalist public. The two last cases of the misunderstanding are: (1) the
article on "Darwin and his Teachings" in the last "Quarterly Journal of
Science," which, though very well written and on the whole appreciative,
yet concludes with a charge of something like blindness, in your not
seeing that Natural Selection requires the constant watching of an
intelligent "chooser," like man's selection to which you so often compare
it; and (2) in Janet's recent work on the "Materialism of the Present
Day," reviewed in last Saturday's "Reader," by an extract from which I see
that he considers your weak point to be that you do not see that "thought
and direction are essential to the action of Natural Selection." The same
objection has been made a score of times by your chief opponents, and I
have heard it as often stated myself in conversation. Now, I think this
arises almost entirely from your choice of the term "Natural Selection"
and so constantly comparing it in its effects to Man's Selection, and also
your so frequently personifying nature as "selecting," as "preferring," as
"seeking only the good of the species," etc., etc. To the few this is as
clear as daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently
a stumbling-block. I wish, therefore, to suggest to you the possibility of
entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (if not
now too late), and also in any future editions of the "Origin," and I
think it may be done without difficulty and very effectually by adopting
Spencer's term (which he generally uses in preference to Natural
Selection)—viz., "survival of the fittest."

This term is the plain expression of the fact; Natural Selection is a
metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and
incorrect, since, even personifying Nature, she does not so much select
special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones.

Combined with the enormous multiplying powers of all organisms, and the
"struggle for existence" leading to the constant destruction of by far the
largest proportion—facts which no one of your opponents, as far as I
am aware, has denied or misunderstood—"the survival of the fittest"
rather than of those who were less fit could not possibly be denied or
misunderstood. Neither would it be possible to say that to ensure the
"survival of the fittest" any intelligent chooser was necessary; whereas
when you say Natural Selection acts so as to choose those that are
fittest, it IS misunderstood, and apparently always will be. Referring to
your book, I find such expressions as "Man selects only for his own good;
Nature only for that of the being which she tends." This, it seems, will
always be misunderstood; but if you had said "Man selects only for his own
good; Nature, by the inevitable 'survival of the fittest,' only for that
of the being she tends," it would have been less liable to be so.

I find you use the term "Natural Selection" in two senses: (1) for the
simple preservation of favourable and rejection of unfavourable
variations, in which case it is equivalent to "survival of the fittest";
and (2) for the effect or change produced by this preservation, as when
you say, "To sum up the circumstances favourable or unfavourable to
Natural Selection," and again, "Isolation, also, is an important element
in the process of Natural Selection." Here it is not merely "survival of
the fittest," but change produced by survival of the fittest, that is
meant. On looking over your fourth chapter, I find that these alterations
of terms can be in most cases easily made, while in some cases the
addition of "or survival of the fittest" after "Natural Selection" would
be best; and in others, less likely to be misunderstood, the original term
may stand alone.

I could not venture to propose to any other person so great an alteration
of terms, but you, I am sure, will give it an impartial consideration, and
if you really think the change will produce a better understanding of your
work, will not hesitate to adopt it.

It is evidently also necessary not to personify "Nature" too much—though
I am very apt to do it myself—since people will not understand that
all such phrases are metaphors. Natural Selection is, when understood, so
necessary and self-evident a principle, that it is a pity it should be in
any way obscured; and it therefore seems to me that the free use of
"survival of the fittest," which is a compact and accurate definition of
it, would tend much to its being more widely accepted, and prevent it
being so much misrepresented and misunderstood.

There is another objection made by Janet which is also a very common one.
It is that the chances are almost infinite against the particular kind of
variation required being coincident with each change of external
conditions, to enable an animal to become modified by Natural Selection in
harmony with such changed conditions; especially when we consider that, to
have produced the almost infinite modifications of organic beings, this
coincidence must have taken place an almost infinite number of times.

Now, it seems to me that you have yourself led to this objection being
made, by so often stating the case too strongly against yourself. For
example, at the commencement of Chapter IV. you ask if it is "improbable
that useful variations should sometimes occur in the course of thousands
of generations"; and a little further on you say, "unless profitable
variations do occur, Natural Selection can do nothing." Now, such
expressions have given your opponents the advantage of assuming that
favourable variations are rare accidents, or may even for long periods
never occur at all, and thus Janet's argument would appear to many to have
great force. I think it would be better to do away with all such
qualifying expressions, and constantly maintain (what I certainly believe
to be the fact) that variations of every kind are always occurring in
every part of every species, and therefore that favourable variations are
always ready when wanted. You have, I am sure, abundant materials to prove
this; and it is, I believe, the grand fact that renders modification and
adaptation to conditions almost always possible. I would put the burthen
of proof on my opponents to show that any one organ, structure, or faculty
does not vary, even during one generation, among all the individuals of a
species; and also to show any mode or way in which any such organ, etc.,
does not vary. I would ask them to give any reason for supposing that any
organ, etc., is ever absolutely identical at any one time in all the
individuals of a species, and if not then it is always varying, and there
are always materials which, from the simple fact that "the fittest
survive," will tend to the modification of the race into harmony with
changed conditions.

I hope these remarks may be intelligible to you, and that you will be so
kind as to let me know what you think of them.

I have not heard for some time how you are getting on. I hope you are
still improving in health, and that you will now be able to get on with
your great work, for which so many thousands are looking with interest.

LETTER 191. TO A.R. WALLACE.

(191/1. From "Life and Letters," III., page 45.)

Down, July 5th {1866}.

I have been much interested by your letter, which is as clear as daylight.
I fully agree with all that you say on the advantages of H. Spencer's
excellent expression of "the survival of the fittest." This, however, had
not occurred to me till reading your letter. It is, however, a great
objection to this term that it cannot be used as a substantive governing a
verb; and that this is a real objection I infer from H. Spencer
continually using the words Natural Selection. I formerly thought,
probably in an exaggerated degree, that it was a great advantage to bring
into connection natural and artificial selection; this indeed led me to
use a term in common, and I still think it some advantage. I wish I had
received your letter two months ago, for I would have worked in "the
survival," etc., often in the new edition of the "Origin," which is now
almost printed off, and of which I will of course send you a copy. I will
use the term in my next book on domestic animals, etc., from which, by the
way, I plainly see that you expect MUCH too much. The term Natural
Selection has now been so largely used abroad and at home that I doubt
whether it could be given up, and with all its faults I should be sorry to
see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend "on the
survival of the fittest." As in time the term must grow intelligible the
objections to its use will grow weaker and weaker. I doubt whether the use
of any term would have made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear
as it is to others; for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on
Population absurdly misunderstood? This reflection about Malthus has often
comforted me when I have been vexed at this misstatement of my views. As
for M. Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that
I think they often misunderstand common folk. Your criticism on the double
sense in which I have used Natural Selection is new to me and
unanswerable; but my blunder has done no harm, for I do not believe that
any one, excepting you, has ever observed it. Again, I agree that I have
said too much about "favourable variations," but I am inclined to think
that you put the opposite side too strongly: if every part of every being
varied, I do not think we should see the same end or object gained by such
wonderfully diversified means.

I hope you are enjoying the country, and are in good health, and are
working hard at your "Malay Archipelago" book, for I will always put this
wish in every note I write to you, as some good people always put in a
text. My health keeps much the same, or rather improves, and I am able to
work some hours daily.

LETTER 192. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 9th {1866}.

One line to say that I have received your note and the proofs safely, and
will read them with the greatest pleasure; but I am certain I shall not be
able to send any criticism on the astronomical chapter (192/1. "Principles
of Geology," by Sir Charles Lyell; Edition X., London, 1867. Chapter XIII.
deals with "Vicissitudes in Climate how far influenced by Astronomical
Causes."), as I am as ignorant as a pig on this head. I shall require some
days to read what has been sent. I have just read Chapter IX. (192/2.
Chapter IX., "Theory of the Progressive Development of Organic Life at
Successive Geological Periods."), and like it extremely; it all seems to
me very clear, cautious, and sagacious. You do not allude to one very
striking point enough, or at all—viz., the classes having been
formerly less differentiated than they now are; and this specialisation of
classes must, we may conclude, fit them for different general habits of
life as well as the specialisation of particular organs.

Page 162 (192/3. On page 163 Lyell refers to the absence of Cetacea in
Secondary rocks, and expresses the opinion that their absence "is a
negative fact of great significance, which seems more than any other to
render it highly improbable that we shall ever find air-breathers of the
highest class in any of the Primary strata, or in any of the older members
of the Secondary series.") I rather demur to your argument from Cetacea:
as they are such greatly modified mammals, they ought to have come in
rather later in the series. You will think me rather impudent, but the
discussion at the end of Chapter IX. on man (192/4. Loc. cit., pages
167-73, "Introduction of Man, to what extent a Change of the System."),
who thinks so much of his fine self, seems to me too long, or rather
superfluous, and too orthodox, except for the beneficed clergy.

LETTER 193. TO V. CARUS.

(193/1. The following letter refers to the 4th edition of the "Origin,"
1866, which was translated by Professor Carus, and formed the 3rd German
edition. Carus continued to translate Darwin's books, and a strong bond of
friendship grew up between author and translator (see "Life and Letters,"
III., page 48). Nageli's pamphlet was first noticed in the 5th English
edition.)

Down, November 21st, 1866.

...With respect to a note on Nageli (193/2. "Entstehung und Begriff der
Naturhistorischen Art," an Address given before the Royal Academy of
Sciences at Munich, March 28th, 1865. See "Life and Letters," III., page
50, for Mr. Darwin's letter to the late Prof. Nageli.) I find on
consideration it would be too long; for so good a pamphlet ought to be
discussed at full length or not at all. He makes a mistake in supposing
that I say that useful characters are always constant. His view about
distinct species converging and acquiring the same identical structure is
by implication answered in the discussion which I have given on the
endless diversity of means for gaining the same end.

The most important point, as it seems to me, in the pamphlet is that on
the morphological characters of plants, and I find I could not answer this
without going into much detail.

The answer would be, as it seems to me, that important morphological
characters, such as the position of the ovules and the relative position
of the stamens to the ovarium (hypogynous, perigynous, etc.) are sometimes
variable in the same species, as I incidentally mention when treating of
the ray-florets in the Compositae and Umbelliferae; and I do not see how
Nageli could maintain that differences in such characters prove an
inherent tendency towards perfection. I see that I have forgotten to say
that you have my fullest consent to append any discussion which you may
think fit to the new edition. As for myself I cannot believe in
spontaneous generation, and though I expect that at some future time the
principle of life will be rendered intelligible, at present it seems to me
beyond the confines of science.

LETTER 194. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, December 22nd {1866?}.

I suppose that you have received Hackel's book (194/1. "Generelle
Morphologie," 1866.) some time ago, as I have done. Whenever you have had
time to read through some of it, enough to judge by, I shall be very
curious to hear your judgment. I have been able to read a page or two here
and there, and have been interested and instructed by parts. But my vague
impression is that too much space is given to methodical details, and I
can find hardly any facts or detailed new views. The number of new words,
to a man like myself, weak in his Greek, is something dreadful. He seems
to have a passion for defining, I daresay very well, and for coining new
words. From my very vague notions on the book, and from its immense size,
I should fear a translation was out of the question. I see he often quotes
both of us with praise. I am sure I should like the book much, if I could
read it straight off instead of groaning and swearing at each sentence. I
have not yet had time to read your Physiology (194/2. "Lessons in
Elementary Physiology," 1866.) book, except one chapter; but I have just
re-read your book on "Man's Place, etc.," and I think I admire it more
this second time even than the first. I doubt whether you will ever have
time, but if ever you have, do read the chapter on hybridism in the new
edition of the "Origin" (194/3. Fourth Edition (1866).), for I am very
anxious to make you think less seriously on that difficulty. I have
improved the chapter a good deal, I think, and have come to more definite
views. Asa Gray and Fritz Muller (the latter especially) think that the
new facts on illegitimate offspring of dimorphic plants, throw much
indirect light on the subject. Now that I have worked up domestic animals,
I am convinced of the truth of the Pallasian (194/4. See Letter 80.) view
of loss of sterility under domestication, and this seems to me to explain
much. But I had no intention, when I began this note, of running on at
such length on hybridism; but you have been Objector-General on this head.

LETTER 195. TO T. RIVERS.

(195/1. For another letter of Mr. Darwin's to him see "Life and Letters,"
III., page 57.)

Down, December 23rd {1866?}.

I do not know whether you will forgive a stranger addressing you. My name
may possibly be known to you. I am now writing a book on the variation of
animals and plants under domestication; and there is one little piece of
information which it is more likely that you could give me than any man in
the world, if you can spare half an hour from your professional labours,
and are inclined to be so kind. I am collecting all accounts of what some
call "sports," that is, of what I shall call "bud-variations," i.e. a
moss-rose suddenly appearing on a Provence rose—a nectarine on a
peach, etc. Now, what I want to know, and which is not likely to be
recorded in print, is whether very slight differences, too slight to be
worth propagating, thus appear suddenly by buds. As every one knows, in
raising seedlings you may have every gradation from individuals identical
with the parent, to slight varieties, to strongly marked varieties. Now,
does this occur with buds or do only rather strongly marked varieties thus
appear at rare intervals of time by buds? (195/2. Mr. Rivers could not
give a decided answer, but he did not remember to have seen slight
bud-variations. The question is discussed in "Variation under
Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page 443.) I should be most
grateful for information. I may add that if you have observed in your
enormous experience any remarkable "bud-variations," and could spare time
to inform me, and allow me to quote them on your authority, it would be
the greatest favour. I feel sure that these "bud-variations" are most
interesting to any one endeavouring to make out what little can be made
out on the obscure subject of variation.

LETTER 196. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 7th {1867?}.

I thank you much for your letter and the parcel of shoots. The case of the
yellow plum is a treasure, and is now safely recorded on your authority in
its proper place, in contrast with A. Knight's case of the yellow magnum
bonum sporting into red. (196/1. See "Variation under Domestication,"
Edition II., Volume I., page 399.) I could see no difference in the
shoots, except that those of the yellow were thicker, and I presume that
this is merely accidental: as you do not mention it, I further presume
that there are no further differences in leaves or flowers of the two
plums. I am very glad to hear about the yellow ash, and that you yourself
have seen the jessamine case. I must confess that I hardly fully believed
in it; but now I do, and very surprising it is.

In an old French book, published in Amsterdam in 1786 (I think), there is
an account, apparently authentic and attested by the writer as an
eye-witness, of hyacinth bulbs of two colours being cut in two and
grafted, and they sent up single stalks with differently coloured flowers
on the two sides, and some flowers parti-coloured. I once thought of
offering 5 pounds reward in the "Cottage Gardener" for such a plant; but
perhaps it would seem too foolish. No instructions are given when to
perform the operation; I have tried two or three times, and utterly
failed. I find that I have a grand list of "bud-variations," and to-morrow
shall work up such cases as I have about rose-sports, which seem very
numerous, and which I see you state to occur comparatively frequently.

When a person is very good-natured he gets much pestered—a discovery
which I daresay you have made, or anyhow will soon make; for I do want
very much to know whether you have sown seed of any moss-roses, and
whether the seedlings were moss-roses. (196/2. Moss-roses can be raised
from seed ("Variation under Domestication," Edition II., Volume I., page
405.) Has a common rose produced by SEED a moss-rose?

If any light comes to you about very slight changes in the buds, pray have
the kindness to illuminate me. I have cases of seven or eight varieties of
the peach which have produced by "bud-variation" nectarines, and yet only
one single case (in France) of a peach producing another closely similar
peach (but later in ripening). How strange it is that a great change in
the peach should occur not rarely and slighter changes apparently very
rarely! How strange that no case seems recorded of new apples or pears or
apricots by "bud-variation"! How ignorant we are! But with the many good
observers now living our children's children will be less ignorant, and
that is a comfort.

LETTER 197. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 7th {1867}.

Very many thanks for your letter, which has told me exactly what I wanted
to know. I shall give up all thoughts of trying to get the book (197/1.
Hackel's "Generelle Morphologie," 1866. See "Life and Letters," III.,
pages 67, 68.) translated, for I am well convinced that it would be
hopeless without too great an outlay. I much regret this, as I should
think the work would be useful, and I am sure it would be to me, as I
shall never be able to wade through more than here and there a page of the
original. To all people I cannot but think that the number of new terms
would be a great evil. I must write to him. I suppose you know his
address, but in case you do not, it is "to care of Signor Nicolaus Krohn,
Madeira." I have sent the MS. of my big book (197/2. "The Variation of
Animals and Plants under Domestication," 1868.), and horridly,
disgustingly big it will be, to the printers, but I do not suppose it will
be published, owing to Murray's idea on seasons, till next November. I am
thinking of a chapter on Man, as there has lately been so much said on
Natural Selection in relation to man. I have not seen the Duke's (or
Dukelet's? how can you speak so of a living real Duke?) book, but must get
it from Mudie, as you say he attacks us. (197/3. "The Reign of Law"
(1867), by the late Duke of Argyll. See "Life and Letters," III., page
65.)

P.S.—Nature never made species mutually sterile by selection, nor
will men.

LETTER 197. TO E. HACKEL. Down, January 8th {1867}.

I received some weeks ago your great work (198/1. "Generelle Morphologie,"
1866.); I have read several parts, but I am too poor a German scholar and
the book is too large for me to read it all. I cannot tell you how much I
regret this, for I am sure that nearly the whole would interest me
greatly, and I have already found several parts very useful, such as the
discussion on cells and on the different forms of reproduction. I feel
sure, after considering the subject deliberately and after consulting with
Huxley, that it would be hopeless to endeavour to get a publisher to print
an English translation; the work is too profound and too long for our
English countrymen. The number of new terms would also, I am sure, tell
much against its sale; and, indeed, I wish for my own sake that you had
printed a glossary of all the new terms which you use. I fully expect that
your book will be highly successful in Germany, and the manner in which
you often refer to me in your text, and your dedication and the title, I
shall always look at as one of the greatest honours conferred on me during
my life. (198/2. As regards the dedication and title this seems a strong
expression. The title is "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine
Grundzuge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft mechanisch begrundet durch
die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie." The dedication of
the second volume is "Den Begrundern der Descendenz-Theorie, den denkenden
Naturforschern, Charles Darwin, Wolfgang Goethe, Jean Lamarck widmet diese
Grundzuge der Allgemeinen Entwickelungsgeschichte in vorzuglicher
Verehrung, der Verfasser.")

I sincerely hope that you have had a prosperous expedition, and have met
with many new and interesting animals. If you have spare time I should
much like to hear what you have been doing and observing. As for myself, I
have sent the MS. of my book on domestic animals, etc., to the printers.
It turns out to be much too large; it will not be published, I suppose,
until next November. I find that we have discussed several of the same
subjects, and I think we agree on most points fairly well. I have lately
heard several times from Fritz Muller, but he seems now chiefly to be
working on plants. I often think of your visit to this house, which I
enjoyed extremely, and it will ever be to me a real pleasure to remember
our acquaintance. From what I heard in London I think you made many
friends there. Shall you return through England? If so, and you can spare
the time, we shall all be delighted to see you here again.

LETTER 199. TO T. RIVERS. Down, January 11th {1867?}.

How rich and valuable a letter you have most kindly sent me! The case of
Baronne Prevost (199/1. See "Variation under Domestication," Edition II.,
Volume I., page 406. Mr. Rivers had a new French rose with a delicate
smooth stem, pale glaucous leaves and striped flesh-coloured flowers; on
branches thus characterised there appeared "the famous old rose called
'Baronne Prevost,'" with its stout thorny stem and uniform rich-coloured
double flowers.), with its different shoots, foliage, spines, and flowers,
will be grand to quote. I am extremely glad to hear about the seedling
moss-roses. That case of a seedling like a Scotch rose, unless you are
sure that no Scotch rose grew near (and it is unlikely that you can
remember), must, one would think, have been a cross.

I have little compunction for being so troublesome—not more than a
grand Inquisitor has in torturing a heretic—for am I not doing a
real good public service in screwing crumbs of knowledge out of your
wealth of information?

P.S. Since the above was written I have read your paper in the "Gardeners'
Chronicle": it is admirable, and will, I know, be a treasure to me. I did
not at all know how strictly the character of so many flowers is
inherited.

On my honour, when I began this note I had no thought of troubling you
with a question; but you mention one point so interesting, and which I
have had occasion to notice, that I must supplicate for a few more facts
to quote on your authority. You say that you have one or two seedling
peaches (199/2. "On raising Peaches, Nectarines, and other Fruits from
Seed." By Thomas Rivers, Sawbridgeworth.—"Gard. Chron." 1866, page
731.) approaching very nearly to thick-fleshed almonds (I know about A.
Knight and the Italian hybrid cases). Now, did any almond grow near your
mother peach? But especially I want to know whether you remember what
shape the stone was, whether flattened like that of an almond; this,
botanically, seems the most important distinction. I earnestly wish to
quote this. Was the flesh at all sweet?

Forgive if you can.

Have you kept these seedling peaches? if you would give me next summer a
fruit, I want to have it engraved.

LETTER 200. TO I. ANDERSON-HENRY. May 22nd {1867}.

You are so kind as to offer to lend me Maillet's (200/1. For De Maillet
see Mr. Huxley's review on "The Origin of Species" in the "Westminster
Review," 1860, reprinted in "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 314. De Maillet's
evolutionary views were published after his death in 1748 under the name
of Telliamed (De Maillet spelt backwards).) work, which I have often heard
of, but never seen. I should like to have a look at it, and would return
it to you in a short time. I am bound to read it, as my former friend and
present bitter enemy Owen generally ranks me and Maillet as a pair of
equal fools.

LETTER 201. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, April 4th {1867}.

You have done me a very great service in sending me the pages of the
"Farmer." I do not know whether you wish it returned; but I will keep it
unless I hear that you want it. Old I. Anderson-Henry passes a magnificent
but rather absurd eulogium on me; but the point of such extreme value in
my eyes is Mr. Traill's (201/1. Mr. Traill's results are given at page 420
of "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I. In the "Life and Letters
of G.J. Romanes," 1896, an interesting correspondence is published with
Mr. Darwin on this subject. The plan of the experiments suggested to
Romanes was to raise seedlings from graft-hybrids: if the seminal
offspring of plants hybridised by grafting should show the hybrid
character, it would be striking evidence in favour of pangenesis. The
experiment, however, did not succeed.) statement that he made a mottled
mongrel by cutting eyes through and joining two kinds of potatoes. (201/2.
For an account of similar experiments now in progress, see a "Note on some
Grafting Experiments" by R. Biffen in the "Annals of Botany," Volume XVI.,
page 174, 1902.) I have written to him for full information, and then I
will set to work on a similar trial. It would prove, I think, to
demonstration that propagation by buds and by the sexual elements are
essentially the same process, as pangenesis in the most solemn manner
declares to be the case.

LETTER 202. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, June 12th {1867?}.

We come up on Saturday, the 15th, for a week. I want much to see you for a
short time to talk about my youngest boy and the School of Mines. I know
it is rather unreasonable, but you must let me come a little after 10
o'clock on Sunday morning, the 16th. If in any way inconvenient, send me a
line to "6, Queen Anne Street W.,"; but if I do not hear, I will (stomacho
volente) call, but I will not stay very long and spoil your whole morning
as a holiday. Will you turn two or three times in your mind this question:
what I called "pangenesis" means that each cell throws off an atom of its
contents or a gemmule, and that these aggregated form the true ovule or
bud, etc.? Now I want to know whether I could not invent a better word.
"Cyttarogenesis" (202/1. From kuttaros, a bee's-cell: cytogenesis would be
a natural form of the word from kutos.)—i.e. cell-genesis—is
more true and expressive, but long. "Atomogenesis" sounds rather better, I
think, but an "atom" is an object which cannot be divided; and the term
might refer to the origin of atoms of inorganic matter. I believe I like
"pangenesis" best, though so indefinite; and though my wife says it sounds
wicked, like pantheism; but I am so familiar now with this word, that I
cannot judge. I supplicate you to help me.

LETTER 203. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, October, 12th and 13th {1867}.

I ordered the journal (203/1. "Quarterly Journal of Science," October,
1867, page 472. A review of the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law.") a long
time ago, but by some oversight received it only yesterday, and read it.
You will think my praise not worth having, from being so indiscriminate;
but if I am to speak the truth, I must say I admire every word. You have
just touched on the points which I particularly wished to see noticed. I
am glad you had the courage to take up Angraecum (203/2. Angraecum
sesquipedale, a Madagascan orchid, with a whiplike nectary, 11 to 12
inches in length, which, according to Darwin ("Fertilisation of Orchids,"
Edition II., page 163), is adapted to the visits of a moth with a
proboscis of corresponding length. He points out that there is no
difficulty in believing in the existence of such a moth as F. Muller has
described ("Nature," 1873, page 223)—a Brazilian sphinx-moth with a
trunk of 10 to 11 inches in length. Moreover, Forbes has given evidence to
show that such an insect does exist in Madagascar ("Nature," VIII., 1873,
page 121). The case of Angraecum was put forward by the Duke of Argyll as
being necessarily due to the personal contrivance of the Deity. Mr.
Wallace (page 476) shows that both proboscis and nectary might be
increased in length by means of Natural Selection. It may be added that
Hermann Muller has shown good grounds for believing that mutual
specialisation of this kind is beneficial both to insect and plant.) after
the Duke's attack; for I believe the principle in this case may be widely
applied. I like the figure, but I wish the artist had drawn a better
sphinx. With respect to beauty, your remarks on hideous objects and on
flowers not being made beautiful except when of practical use to them,
strike me as very good. On this one point of beauty I can hardly think
that the Duke was quite candid. I have used in the concluding paragraph of
my present book precisely the same argument as you have, even bringing in
the bull-dog (203/3. "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition I., Volume
II., page 431: "Did He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to
vary in order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity, with
jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man's brutal sport?"), with respect
to variations not having been specially ordained. Your metaphor of the
river (203/4. See Wallace, op. cit., pages 477-8. He imagines an observer
examining a great river-system, and finding everywhere adaptations which
reveal the design of the Creator. "He would see special adaptation to the
wants of man in broad, quiet, navigable rivers, through fertile alluvial
plains that would support a large population, while the rocky streams and
mountain torrents were confined to those sterile regions suitable only for
a small population of shepherds and herdsmen.') is new to me, and
admirable; but your other metaphor, in which you compare classification
and complex machines, does not seem to me quite appropriate, though I
cannot point out what seems deficient. The point which seems to me strong
is that all naturalists admit that there is a natural classification, and
it is this which descent explains. I wish you had insisted a little more
against the "North British" (203/5. At page 485 Mr. Wallace deals with
Fleeming Jenkin's review in the "North British Review," 1867. The review
strives to show that there are strict limits to variation, since the most
rigorous and long-continued selection does not indefinitely increase such
a quality as the fleetness of a racehorse. On this Mr. Wallace remarks
that "this argument fails to meet the real question," which is, not
whether indefinite change is possible, "but whether such differences as do
occur in nature could have been produced by the accumulation of variations
by selection.") on the reviewer assuming that each variation which appears
is a strongly marked one; though by implication you have made this very
plain. Nothing in your whole article has struck me more than your view
with respect to the limit of fleetness in the racehorse and other such
cases: I shall try and quote you on this head in the proof of my
concluding chapter. I quite missed this explanation, though in the case of
wheat I hit upon something analogous. I am glad you praise the Duke's
book, for I was much struck with it. The part about flight seemed to me at
first very good; but as the wing is articulated by a ball-and-socket
joint, I suspect the Duke would find it very difficult to give any reason
against the belief that the wing strikes the air more or less obliquely. I
have been very glad to see your article and the drawing of the butterfly
in "Science Gossip." By the way, I cannot but think that you push
protection too far in some cases, as with the stripes on the tiger. I have
also this morning read an excellent abstract in the "Gardeners' Chronicle"
of your paper on nests. (203/6. An abstract of a paper on "Birds' Nests
and Plumage," read before the British Association: see "Gard. Chron."
1867, page 1047.) I was not by any means fully converted by your letter,
but I think now I am so; and I hope it will be published somewhere in
extenso. It strikes me as a capital generalisation, and appears to me even
more original than it did at first...

I have finished Volume I. of my book {"Variation of Animals and Plants"},
and I hope the whole will be out by the end of November. If you have the
patience to read it through, which is very doubtful, you will find, I
think, a large accumulation of facts which will be of service to you in
future papers; and they could not be put to better use, for you certainly
are a master in the noble art of reasoning.

LETTER 204. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, October 3rd {no date}.

I know you have no time for speculative correspondence; and I did not in
the least expect an answer to my last. But I am very glad to have had it,
for in my eclectic work the opinions of the few good men are of great
value to me.

I knew, of course, of the Cuvierian view of classification (204/1. Cuvier
proved that "animals cannot be arranged in a single series, but that there
are several distinct plans of organisation to be observed among them, no
one of which, in its highest and most complicated modification, leads to
any of the others" (Huxley's "Darwiniana," page 215).); but I think that
most naturalists look for something further, and search for "the natural
system,"—"for the plan on which the Creator has worked," etc., etc.
It is this further element which I believe to be simply genealogical.

But I should be very glad to have your answer (either when we meet or by
note) to the following case, taken by itself, and not allowing yourself to
look any further than to the point in question. Grant all races of man
descended from one race—grant that all the structure of each race of
man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of the descent
of each race was perfectly known—grant all this, and then do you not
think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical
one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to
another, as it would have stood, if collocated by structure alone?
Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races and their
pedigrees would go together.

I should like to hear what you would say on this purely theoretical case.

It might be asked why is development so all-potent in classification, as I
fully admit it is? I believe it is because it depends on, and best
betrays, genealogical descent; but this is too large a point to enter on.

LETTER 205. TO C. LYELL. Down, December 7th {1867}.

I send by this post the article in the Victorian Institute with respect to
frogs' spawn. If you remember in your boyhood having ever tried to take a
small portion out of the water, you will remember that it is most
difficult. I believe all the birds in the world might alight every day on
the spawn of batrachians, and never transport a single ovum. With respect
to the young of molluscs, undoubtedly if the bird to which they were
attached alighted on the sea, they would be instantly killed; but a
land-bird would, I should think, never alight except under dire necessity
from fatigue. This, however, has been observed near Heligoland (205/1.
Instances are recorded by Gatke in his "Heligoland as an Ornithological
Observatory" (translated by Rudolph Rosenstock, Edinburgh, 1895) of
land-birds, such as thrushes, buntings, finches, etc., resting for a short
time on the surface of the water. The author describes observations made
by himself about two miles west of Heligoland (page 129).); and
land-birds, after resting for a time on the tranquil sea, have been seen
to rise and continue their flight. I cannot give you the reference about
Heligoland without much searching. This alighting on the sea may aid you
in your unexpected difficulty of the too-easy diffusion of land-molluscs
by the agency of birds. I much enjoyed my morning's talk with you.

LETTER 206. TO F. HILDEBRAND. Down, January 5th {1868}.

I thank you for your letter, which has quite delighted me. I sincerely
congratulate you on your success in making a graft-hybrid (206/1. Prof.
Hildebrand's paper is in the "Bot. Zeitung," 1868: the substance is given
in "Variation of Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 420.),
for I believe it to be a most important observation. I trust that you will
publish full details on this subject and on the direct action of pollen
(206/2. See Prof. Hildebrand, "Bot. Zeitung," 1868, and "Variation of
Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page 430. A yellow-grained
maize was fertilised with pollen from a brown-grained one; the result was
that ears were produced bearing both yellow and dark-coloured grains.): I
hope that you will be so kind as to send me a copy of your paper. If I had
succeeded in making a graft-hybrid of the potato, I had intended to raise
seedlings from the graft-hybrid and from the two parent-forms (excluding
insects) and carefully compare the offspring. This, however, would be
difficult on account of the sterility and variability of the potato. When
in the course of a few months you receive my second volume (206/3. This
sentence may be paraphrased—"When you receive my book and read the
second volume."), you will see why I think these two subjects so
important. They have led me to form a hypothesis on the various forms of
reproduction, development, inheritance, etc., which hypothesis, I believe,
will ultimately be accepted, though how it will be now received I am very
doubtful.

Once again I congratulate you on your success.

LETTER 207. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, January 6th {1868}.

Many thanks about names of plants, synonyms, and male flowers—all
that I wanted.

I have been glad to see Watson's letter, and am sorry he is a renegade
about Natural Selection. It is, as you say, characteristic, with the final
fling at you.

His difficulty about the difference between the two genera of St. Helena
Umbellifers is exactly the same as what Nageli has urged in an able
pamphlet (207/1. "Ueber Entstehung und Begriff der naturhist. Art." "Sitz.
der K. Bayer. Akad. Der Wiss. zu Munchen," 1865. Some of Nageli's points
are discussed in the "Origin," Edition V., page 151.), and who in
consequence maintains that there is some unknown innate tendency to
progression in all organisms. I said in a letter to him that of course I
could not in the least explain such cases; but that they did not seem to
me of overwhelming force, as long as we are quite ignorant of the meaning
of such structures, whether they are of any service to the plants, or
inevitable consequences of modifications in other parts.

I cannot understand what Watson means by the "counter-balance in nature"
to divergent variation. There is the counterbalance of crossing, of which
my present work daily leads me to see more and more the efficiency; but I
suppose he means something very different. Further, I believe variation to
be divergent solely because diversified forms can best subsist. But you
will think me a bore.

I enclose half a letter from F. Muller (which please return) for the
chance of your liking to see it; though I have doubted much about sending
it, as you are so overworked. I imagine the Solanum-like flower is
curious.

I heard yesterday to my joy that Dr. Hildebrand has been experimenting on
the direct action of pollen on the mother-plant with success. He has also
succeeded in making a true graft-hybrid between two varieties of potatoes,
in which I failed. I look at this as splendid for pangenesis, as being
strong evidence that bud-reproduction and seminal reproduction do not
essentially differ.

My book is horribly delayed, owing to the accursed index-maker. (207/2.
Darwin thoroughly appreciated the good work put into the index of "The
Variation of Animals and Plants.") I have almost forgotten it!

LETTER 208. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 30th {1868}.

Most sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. I never received a note
from you in my life without pleasure; but whether this will be so after
you have read pangenesis (208/1. In Volume II. of "Animals and Plants,
1868.), I am very doubtful. Oh Lord, what a blowing up I may receive! I
write now partly to say that you must not think of looking at my book till
the summer, when I hope you will read pangenesis, for I care for your
opinion on such a subject more than for that of any other man in Europe.
You are so terribly sharp-sighted and so confoundedly honest! But to the
day of my death I will always maintain that you have been too
sharp-sighted on hybridism; and the chapter on the subject in my book I
should like you to read: not that, as I fear, it will produce any good
effect, and be hanged to you.

I rejoice that your children are all pretty well. Give Mrs. Huxley the
enclosed (208/2. Queries on Expression.), and ask her to look out when one
of her children is struggling and just going to burst out crying. A dear
young lady near here plagued a very young child for my sake, till it
cried, and saw the eyebrows for a second or two beautifully oblique, just
before the torrent of tears began.

The sympathy of all our friends about George's success (it is the young
Herald) (208/3. His son George was Second Wrangler in 1868; as a boy he
was an enthusiast in heraldry.) has been a wonderful pleasure to us.
George has not slaved himself, which makes his success the more
satisfactory. Farewell, my dear Huxley, and do not kill yourself with
work.

(209/1. The following group of letters deals with the problem of the
causes of the sterility of hybrids. Mr. Darwin's final view is given in
the "Origin," sixth edition (page 384, edition 1900). He acknowledges that
it would be advantageous to two incipient species, if by physiological
isolation due to mutual sterility, they could be kept from blending: but
he continues, "After mature reflection it seems to me that this could not
have been effected through Natural Selection." And finally he concludes
(page 386):—

"But it would be superfluous to discuss this question in detail; for with
plants we have conclusive evidence that the sterility of crossed species
must be due to some principle quite independent of Natural Selection. Both
Gartner and Kolreuter have proved that in genera including numerous
species, a series can be formed from species which when crossed yield
fewer and fewer seeds, to species which never produce a single seed, but
yet are affected by the pollen of certain other species, for the germen
swells. It is here manifestly impossible to select the more sterile
individuals, which have already ceased to yield seeds; so that this acme
of sterility, when the germen alone is affected, cannot have been gained
through selection; and from the laws governing the various grades of
sterility being so uniform throughout the animal and vegetable kingdoms,
we may infer that the cause, whatever it may be, is the same or nearly the
same in all cases."

Mr. Wallace, on the other hand, still adheres to his view: see his
"Darwinism," 1889, page 174, and for a more recent statement see page 292,
note 1, Letter 211, and page 299.

The discussion of 1868 began with a letter from Mr. Wallace, written
towards the end of February, giving his opinion on the "Variation of
Animals and Plants;" the discussion on the sterility of hybrids is at page
185, Volume II., of the first edition.)

LETTER 209. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. February 1868.

The only parts I have yet met with where I somewhat differ from your
views, are in the chapter on the causes of variability, in which I think
several of your arguments are unsound: but this is too long a subject to
go into now. Also, I do not see your objection to sterility between allied
species having been aided by Natural Selection. It appears to me that,
given a differentiation of a species into two forms, each of which was
adapted to a special sphere of existence, every slight degree of sterility
would be a positive advantage, not to the individuals who were sterile,
but to each form. If you work it out, and suppose the two incipient
species a...b to be divided into two groups, one of which contains those
which are fertile when the two are crossed, the other being slightly
sterile, you will find that the latter will certainly supplant the former
in the struggle for existence; remembering that you have shown that in
such a cross the offspring would be more vigorous than the pure breed, and
therefore would certainly soon supplant them, and as these would not be so
well adapted to any special sphere of existence as the pure species a and
b, they would certainly in their turn give way to a and b.

LETTER 210. TO A.R. WALLACE. February 27th {1868}.

I shall be very glad to hear, at some future day, your criticisms on the
"causes of variability." Indeed, I feel sure that I am right about
sterility and Natural Selection. Two of my grown-up children who are acute
reasoners have two or three times at intervals tried to prove me wrong;
and when your letter came they had another try, but ended by coming back
to my side. I do not quite understand your case, and we think that a word
or two is misplaced. I wish some time you would consider the case under
the following point of view. If sterility is caused or accumulated through
Natural Selection, then, as every degree exists up to absolute barrenness,
Natural Selection must have the power of increasing it. Now take two
species A and B, and assume that they are (by any means) half-sterile,
i.e., produce half the full number of offspring. Now try and make (by
Natural Selection) A and B absolutely sterile when crossed, and you will
find how difficult it is. I grant, indeed it is certain, that the degree
of the sterility of the individuals of A and B will vary; but any such
extra-sterile individuals of, we will say A, if they should hereafter
breed with other individuals of A, will bequeath no advantage to their
progeny, by which these families will tend to increase in number over
other families of A, which are not more sterile when crossed with B. But I
do not know that I have made this any clearer than in the chapter in my
book. It is a most difficult bit of reasoning, which I have gone over and
over again on paper with diagrams. (210/1. This letter appeared in "Life
and Letters," III., page 80.)

LETTER 211. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. March 1st, 1868.

I beg to enclose what appears to me a demonstration on your own
principles, that Natural Selection could produce sterility of hybrids. If
it does not convince you, I shall be glad if you will point out where the
fallacy lies. I have taken the two cases of a slight sterility overcoming
perfect fertility, and of a perfect sterility overcoming a partial
fertility,—the beginning and end of the process. You admit that
variations in fertility and sterility occur, and I think you will also
admit that if I demonstrate that a considerable amount of sterility would
be advantageous to a variety, that is sufficient proof that the slightest
variation in that direction would be useful also, and would go on
accumulating.

1. Let there be a species which has varied into two forms, each adapted to
existing conditions (211/1. "Existing conditions," means of course new
conditions which have now come into existence. And the "two" being both
better adapted than the parent form, means that they are better adapted
each to a special environment in the same area—as one to damp,
another to dry places; one to woods, another to open grounds, etc., etc.,
as Darwin had already explained. A.R.W. (1899).) better than the parent
form, which they supplant.

2. If these two forms, which are supposed to co-exist in the same
district, do not intercross, Natural Selection will accumulate favourable
variations, till they become sufficiently well adapted to their conditions
of life and form two allied species.

3. But if these two forms freely intercross with each other and produce
hybrids which are also quite fertile inter se, then the formation of the
two distinct races or species will be retarded or perhaps entirely
prevented; for the offspring of the crossed unions will be more vigorous
owing to the cross, although less adapted to their conditions of life than
either of the pure breeds. (211/2. After "pure breeds," add "because less
specialised." A.R.W. (1899).)

4. Now let a partial sterility of some individuals of these two forms
arise when they intercross; and as this would probably be due to some
special conditions of life, we may fairly suppose it to arise in some
definite portion of the area occupied by the two forms.

5. The result is that in this area hybrids will not increase so rapidly as
before; and as by the terms of the problem the two pure forms are better
suited to the conditions of life than the hybrids, they will tend to
supplant the latter altogether whenever the struggle for existence becomes
severe.

6. We may fairly suppose, also, that as soon as any sterility appears
under natural conditions, it will be accompanied by some disinclination to
cross-unions; and this will further diminish the production of hybrids.

7. In the other part of the area, however, where hybridism occurs
unchecked, hybrids of various degrees will soon far outnumber the parent
or pure form.

8. The first result, then, of a partial sterility of crosses appearing in
one part of the area occupied by the two forms, will be, that the GREAT
MAJORITY of the individuals will there consist of the pure forms only,
while in the rest of the area these will be in a minority,—which is
the same as saying, that the new sterile or physiological variety of the
two forms will be better suited to the conditions of existence than the
remaining portion which has not varied physiologically.

9. But when the struggle for existence becomes severe, that variety which
is best adapted to the conditions of existence always supplants that which
is imperfectly adapted; therefore by Natural Selection the sterile
varieties of the two forms will become established as the only ones.

10. Now let a fresh series of variations in the amount of sterility and in
the disinclination to crossed unions occur,—also in certain parts of
the area: exactly the same result must recur, and the progeny of this new
physiological variety again in time occupy the whole area.

11. There is yet another consideration that supports this view. It seems
probable that the variations in amount of sterility would to some extent
concur with and perhaps depend upon the structural variations; so that
just in proportion as the two forms diverged and became better adapted to
the conditions of existence, their sterility would increase. If this were
the case, then Natural Selection would act with double strength, and those
varieties which were better adapted to survive both structurally and
physiologically, would certainly do so. (211/3. The preceding eleven
paragraphs are substantially but not verbally identical with the statement
of the argument in Mr. Wallace's "Darwinism," 1889. Pages 179, 180, note
1.)

12. Let us now consider the more difficult case of two allied species A,
B, in the same area, half the individuals of each (As, Bs) being
absolutely sterile, the other half (Af, Bf) being partially fertile: will
As, Bs ultimately exterminate Af, Bf?

13. To avoid complication, it must be granted, that between As and Bs no
cross-unions take place, while between Af and Bf cross-unions are as
frequent as direct unions, though much less fertile. We must also leave
out of consideration crosses between As and Af, Bs and Bf, with their
various approaches to sterility, as I believe they will not affect the
final result, although they will greatly complicate the problem.

14. In the first generation there will result: 1st, The pure progeny of As
and Bs; 2nd, The pure progeny of Af and of Bf; and 3rd, The hybrid progeny
of Af, Bf.

15. Supposing that, in ordinary years, the increased constitutional vigour
of the hybrids exactly counterbalances their imperfect adaptations to
conditions, there will be in the second generation, besides these three
classes, hybrids of the second degree between the first hybrids and Af and
Bf respectively. In succeeding generations there will be hybrids of all
degrees, varying between the first hybrids and the almost pure types of Af
and Bf.

16. Now, if at first the number of individuals of As, Bs, Af and Bf were
equal, and year after year the total number continues stationary, I think
it can be proved that, while half will be the pure progeny of As and Bs,
the other half will become more and more hybridised, until the whole will
be hybrids of various degrees.

17. Now, this hybrid and somewhat intermediate race cannot be so well
adapted to the conditions of life as the two pure species, which have been
formed by the minute adaptation to conditions through Natural Selection;
therefore, in a severe struggle for existence, the hybrids must succumb,
especially as, by hypothesis, their fertility would not be so great as
that of the two pure species.

18. If we were to take into consideration the unions of As with Af and Bs
with Bf, the results would become very complicated, but it must still lead
to there being a number of pure forms entirely derived from As and Bs, and
of hybrid forms mainly derived from Af and Bf; and the result of the
struggle of these two sets of individuals cannot be doubtful.

19. If these arguments are sound, it follows that sterility may be
accumulated and increased, and finally made complete by Natural Selection,
whether the sterile varieties originate together in a definite portion of
the area occupied by the two species, or occur scattered over the whole
area. (211/4. The first part of this discussion should be considered
alone, as it is both more simple and more important. I now believe that
the utility, and therefore the cause of sterility between species, is
during the process of differentiation. When species are fully formed, the
occasional occurrence of hybrids is of comparatively small importance, and
can never be a danger to the existence of the species. A.R.W. (1899).)

P.S.—In answer to the objection as to the unequal sterility of
reciprocal crosses ("Variation, etc." Volume II., page 186) I reply that,
as far as it went, the sterility of one cross would be advantageous even
if the other cross was fertile: and just as characters now co-ordinated
may have been separately accumulated by Natural Selection, so the
reciprocal crosses may have become sterile one at a time.

LETTER 212. TO A.R. WALLACE. 4, Chester Place, March 17th, 1868.

(212/1. Mr. Darwin had already written a short note to Mr. Wallace
expressing a general dissent from his view.)

I do not feel that I shall grapple with the sterility argument till my
return home; I have tried once or twice, and it has made my stomach feel
as if it had been placed in a vice. Your paper has driven three of my
children half mad—one sat up till 12 o'clock over it. My second son,
the mathematician, thinks that you have omitted one almost inevitable
deduction which apparently would modify the result. He has written out
what he thinks, but I have not tried fully to understand him. I suppose
that you do not care enough about the subject to like to see what he has
written.

I return your son's notes with my notes on them. Without going into any
details, is not this a strong general argument?

1. A species varies occasionally in two directions, but owing to their
free intercrossing the varieties never increase.

2. A change of conditions occurs which threatens the existence of the
species; but the two varieties are adapted to the changing conditions, and
if accumulated will form two new species adapted to the new conditions.

3. Free crossing, however, renders this impossible, and so the species is
in danger of extinction.

4. If sterility would be induced, then the pure races would increase more
rapidly, and replace the old species.

5. It is admitted that partial sterility between varieties does
occasionally occur. It is admitted {that} the degree of this sterility
varies; is it not probable that Natural Selection can accumulate these
variations, and thus save the species? If Natural Selection can NOT do
this, how do species ever arise, except when a variety is isolated?

Closely allied species in distinct countries being sterile is no
difficulty; for either they diverged from a common ancestor in contact,
and Natural Selection increased the sterility, or they were isolated, and
have varied since: in which case they have been for ages influenced by
distinct conditions which may well produce sterility.

If the difficulty of grafting was as great as the difficulty of crossing,
and as regular, I admit it would be a most serious objection. But it is
not. I believe many distinct species can be grafted, while others less
distinct cannot. The regularity with which natural species are sterile
together, even when very much alike, I think is an argument in favour of
the sterility having been generally produced by Natural Selection for the
good of the species.

The other difficulty, of unequal sterility of reciprocal crosses, seems
none to me; for it is a step to more complete sterility, and as such would
be increased by selection.

LETTER 213. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, April 6th {1868}.

I have been considering the terrible problem. Let me first say that no man
could have more earnestly wished for the success of Natural Selection in
regard to sterility than I did; and when I considered a general statement
(as in your last note) I always felt sure it could be worked out, but
always failed in detail. The cause being, as I believe, that Natural
Selection cannot effect what is not good for the individual, including in
this term a social community. It would take a volume to discuss all the
points, and nothing is so humiliating to me as to agree with a man like
you (or Hooker) on the premises and disagree about the result.

I agree with my son's argument and not with the rejoinder. The cause of
our difference, I think, is that I look at the number of offspring as an
important element (all circumstances remaining the same) in keeping up the
average number of individuals within any area. I do not believe that the
amount of food by any means is the sole determining cause of number.
Lessened fertility is equivalent to a new source of destruction. I believe
if in one district a species produced from any cause fewer young, the
deficiency would be supplied from surrounding districts. This applies to
your Paragraph 5. (213/1. See Letter 211.) If the species produced fewer
young from any cause in every district, it would become extinct unless its
fertility were augmented through Natural Selection (see H. Spencer).

I demur to probability and almost to possibility of Paragraph 1., as you
start with two forms within the same area, which are not mutually sterile,
and which yet have supplanted the parent-form.

(Paragraph 6.) I know of no ghost of a fact supporting belief that
disinclination to cross accompanies sterility. It cannot hold with plants,
or the lower fixed aquatic animals. I saw clearly what an immense aid this
would be, but gave it up. Disinclination to cross seems to have been
independently acquired, probably by Natural Selection; and I do not see
why it would not have sufficed to have prevented incipient species from
blending to have simply increased sexual disinclination to cross.

(Paragraph 11.) I demur to a certain extent to amount of sterility and
structural dissimilarity necessarily going together, except indirectly and
by no means strictly. Look at vars. of pigeons, fowls, and cabbages.

I overlooked the advantage of the half-sterility of reciprocal crosses;
yet, perhaps from novelty, I do not feel inclined to admit probability of
Natural Selection having done its work so queerly.

I will not discuss the second case of utter sterility, but your
assumptions in Paragraph 13 seem to me much too complicated. I cannot
believe so universal an attribute as utter sterility between remote
species was acquired in so complex a manner. I do not agree with your
rejoinder on grafting: I fully admit that it is not so closely restricted
as crossing, but this does not seem to me to weaken the case as one of
analogy. The incapacity of grafting is likewise an invariable attribute of
plants sufficiently remote from each other, and sometimes of plants pretty
closely allied.

The difficulty of increasing the sterility through Natural Selection of
two already sterile species seems to me best brought home by considering
an actual case. The cowslip and primrose are moderately sterile, yet
occasionally produce hybrids. Now these hybrids, two or three or a dozen
in a whole parish, occupy ground which might have been occupied by either
pure species, and no doubt the latter suffer to this small extent. But can
you conceive that any individual plants of the primrose and cowslip which
happened to be mutually rather more sterile (i.e. which, when crossed,
yielded a few less seed) than usual, would profit to such a degree as to
increase in number to the ultimate exclusion of the present primrose and
cowslip? I cannot.

My son, I am sorry to say, cannot see the full force of your rejoinder in
regard to second head of continually augmented sterility. You speak in
this rejoinder, and in Paragraph 5, of all the individuals becoming in
some slight degree sterile in certain districts: if you were to admit that
by continued exposure to these same conditions the sterility would
inevitably increase, there would be no need of Natural Selection. But I
suspect that the sterility is not caused so much by any particular
conditions as by long habituation to conditions of any kind. To speak
according to pangenesis, the gemmules of hybrids are not injured, for
hybrids propagate freely by buds; but their reproductive organs are
somehow affected, so that they cannot accumulate the proper gemmules, in
nearly the same manner as the reproductive organs of a pure species become
affected when exposed to unnatural conditions.

This is a very ill-expressed and ill-written letter. Do not answer it,
unless the spirit urges you. Life is too short for so long a discussion.
We shall, I greatly fear, never agree.

I am sorry you should have given yourself the trouble to answer my ideas
on sterility. If you are not convinced, I have little doubt but that I am
wrong; and, in fact, I was only half convinced by my own arguments, and I
now think there is about an even chance that Natural Selection may or may
not be able to accumulate sterility. If my first proposition is modified
to the existence of a species and a variety in the same area, it will do
just as well for my argument. Such certainly do exist. They are fertile
together, and yet each maintains itself tolerably distinct. How can this
be, if there is no disinclination to crossing?

My belief certainly is that number of offspring is not so important an
element in keeping up population of a species as supply of food and other
favourable conditions; because the numbers of a species constantly vary
greatly in different parts of its own area, whereas the average number of
offspring is not a very variable element.

However, I will say no more, but leave the problem as insoluble, only
fearing that it will become a formidable weapon in the hands of the
enemies of Natural Selection.

LETTER 215. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(215/1. The following extract from a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker (dated
April 3rd, 1868) refers to his Presidential Address for the approaching
meeting of the British Association at Norwich.

Some account of Sir Joseph's success is given in the "Life and Letters,"
III., page 100, also in Huxley's "Life," Volume I., page 297, where Huxley
writes to Darwin:—

"We had a capital meeting at Norwich, and dear old Hooker came out in
great force, as he always does in emergencies. The only fault was the
terrible 'Darwinismus' which spread over the section and crept out when
you least expected it, even in Fergusson's lecture on 'Buddhist Temples.'
You will have the rare happiness to see your ideas triumphant during your
lifetime.

"P.S.—I am going into opposition; I can't stand it.")

Down, April 3rd {1868}.

I have been thinking over your Presidential Address; I declare I made
myself quite uncomfortable by fancying I had to do it, and feeling myself
utterly dumbfounded.

But I do not believe that you will find it so difficult. When you come to
Down I shall be very curious to hear what your ideas are on the subject.

Could you make anything out of a history of the great steps in the
progress of Botany, as representing the whole of Natural History? Heaven
protect you! I suppose there are men to whom such a job would not be so
awful as it appears to me...If you had time, you ought to read an article
by W. Bagehot in the April number of the "Fortnightly" (215/2. "Physic and
Politics," "Fortnightly Review," Volume III., page 452, 1868.), applying
Natural Selection to early or prehistoric politics, and, indeed, to late
politics,—this you know is your view.

I ought to have written before to thank you for the copies of your papers
on Primula and on "Cross-unions of Dimorphic Plants, etc." The latter is
particularly interesting and the conclusion most important; but I think it
makes the difficulty of how these forms, with their varying degrees of
sterility, originated, greater than ever. If "natural selection" could not
accumulate varying degrees of sterility for the plant's benefit, then how
did sterility ever come to be associated with one cross of a trimorphic
plant rather than another? The difficulty seems to be increased by the
consideration that the advantage of a cross with a distinct individual is
gained just as well by illegitimate as by legitimate unions. By what
means, then, did illegitimate unions ever become sterile? It would seem a
far simpler way for each plant's pollen to have acquired a prepotency on
another individual's stigma over that of the same individual, without the
extraordinary complication of three differences of structure and eighteen
different unions with varying degrees of sterility!

However, the fact remains an excellent answer to the statement that
sterility of hybrids proves the absolute distinctness of the parents.

I have been reading with great pleasure Mr. Bentham's last admirable
address (216/1. "Proc. Linn. Soc." 1867-8, page lvii.), in which he so
well replies to the gross misstatements of the "Athenaeum;" and also says
award in favour of pangenesis. I think we may now congratulate you on
having made a valuable convert, whose opinions on the subject, coming so
late and being evidently so well considered, will have much weight.

I am going to Norwich on Tuesday to hear Dr. Hooker, who I hope will
boldly promulgate "Darwinism" in his address. (216/2. Sir Joseph Hooker's
Presidential Address at the British Association Meeting.) Shall we have
the pleasure of seeing you there?

I am engaged in negociations about my book.

Hoping you are well and getting on with your next volumes.

(216/3. We are permitted by Mr. Wallace to append the following note as to
his more recent views on the question of Natural Selection and sterility:—

"When writing my "Darwinism," and coming again to the consideration of
this problem of the effect of Natural Selection in accumulating variations
in the amount of sterility between varieties or incipient species twenty
years later, I became more convinced, than I was when discussing with
Darwin, of the substantial accuracy of my argument. Recently a
correspondent who is both a naturalist and a mathematician has pointed out
to me a slight error in my calculation at page 183 (which does not,
however, materially affect the result), disproving the 'physiological
selection' of the late Dr. Romanes, but he can see no fallacy in my
argument as to the power of Natural Selection to increase sterility
between incipient species, nor, so far as I am aware, has any one shown
such fallacy to exist.

"On the other points on which I differed from Mr. Darwin in the foregoing
discussion—the effect of high fertility on population of a species,
etc.—I still hold the views I then expressed, but it would be out of
place to attempt to justify them here."

A.R.W. (1899).)

LETTER 217. TO C. LYELL. Down, October 4th {1867}.

With respect to the points in your note, I may sometimes have expressed
myself with ambiguity. At the end of Chapter XXIII., where I say that
marked races are not often (you omit "often") produced by changed
conditions (217/1. "Hence, although it must be admitted that new
conditions of life do sometimes definitely affect organic beings, it may
be doubted whether well-marked races have often been produced by the
direct action of changed conditions without the aid of selection either by
man or nature." ("Animals and Plants," Volume II., page 292, 1868.)), I
intended to refer to the direct action of such conditions in causing
variation, and not as leading to the preservation or destruction of
certain forms. There is as wide a difference in these two respects as
between voluntary selection by man and the causes which induce
variability. I have somewhere in my book referred to the close connection
between Natural Selection and the action of external conditions in the
sense which you specify in your note. And in this sense all Natural
Selection may be said to depend on changed conditions. In the "Origin" I
think I have underrated (and from the cause which you mention) the effects
of the direct action of external conditions in producing varieties; but I
hope in Chapter XXIII. I have struck as fair a balance as our knowledge
permits.

It is wonderful to me that you have patience to read my slips, and I
cannot but regret, as they are so imperfect; they must, I think, give you
a wrong impression, and had I sternly refused, you would perhaps have
thought better of my book. Every single slip is greatly altered, and I
hope improved.

With respect to the human ovule, I cannot find dimensions given, though I
have often seen the statement. My impression is that it would be just or
barely visible if placed on a clear piece of glass. Huxley could answer
your question at once.

I have not been well of late, and have made slow progress, but I think my
book will be finished by the middle of November.

LETTER 218. A.R. WALLACE TO CHARLES DARWIN. {End of February, 1868}

I am in the second volume of your book, and I have been astonished at the
immense number of interesting facts you have brought together. I read the
chapter on pangenesis first, for I could not wait. I can hardly tell you
how much I admire it. It is a positive comfort to me to have any feasible
explanation of a difficulty that has always been haunting me, and I shall
never be able to give it up till a better one supplies its place,—and
that I think hardly possible. You have now fairly beaten Spencer on his
own ground, for he really offered no solution of the difficulties of the
problem. The incomprehensible minuteness and vast numbers of the
physiological germs or atoms (which themselves must be compounded of
numbers of Spencer's physiological units) is the only difficulty; but that
is only on a par with the difficulties in all conceptions of matter,
space, motion, force, etc.

As I understood Spencer, his physiological units were identical throughout
each species, but slightly different in each different species; but no
attempt was made to show how the identical form of the parent or ancestors
came to be built up of such units.

LETTER 219. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, February 27th {1868}.

You cannot well imagine how much I have been pleased by what you say about
pangenesis. None of my friends will speak out, except to a certain extent
Sir H. Holland, who found it very tough reading, but admits that some view
"closely akin to it" will have to be admitted. Hooker, as far as I
understand him, which I hardly do at present, seems to think that the
hypothesis is little more than saying that organisms have such and such
potentialities. What you say exactly and fully expresses my feelings—viz.,
that it is a relief to have some feasible explanation of the various
facts, which can be given up as soon as any better hypothesis is found. It
has certainly been an immense relief to my mind; for I have been stumbling
over the subject for years, dimly seeing that some relation existed
between the various classes of facts. I now hear from H. Spencer that his
views quoted in my footnote refer to something quite distinct, as you seem
to have perceived. (219/1. This letter is published in "Life and Letters,"
III., page 79.)

...Sir C. Lyell spoke to me as if he has greatly admired pangenesis. I am
very glad H. Spencer at once acknowledges that his view was something
quite distinct from yours. Although, as you know, I am a great admirer of
his, I feel how completely his view failed to go to the root of the
matter, as yours does. His explained nothing, though he was evidently
struggling hard to find an explanation. Yours, as far as I can see,
explains everything in growth and reproduction—though, of course,
the mystery of life and consciousness remains as great as ever.

Parts of the chapter on pangenesis I found hard reading, and have not
quite mastered yet, and there are also throughout the discussions in
Volume II. many bits of hard reading, on minute points which we, who have
not worked experimentally at cultivation and crossing, as you have done,
can hardly see the importance of, or their bearing on the general
question.

If I am asked, I may perhaps write an article on the book for some
periodical, and, if so, shall do what I can to make "Pangenesis"
appreciated...

(220/1. In "Nature," May 25th, 1871, page 69, appeared a letter on
pangenesis from Mr. A.C. Ranyard, dealing with the difficulty that the
"sexual elements produced upon the scion" have not been shown to be
affected by the stock. Mr. Darwin, in an annotated copy of this letter,
disputes the accuracy of the statement, but adds: "THE BEST OBJECTION YET
RAISED." He seems not to have used Mr. Ranyard's remarks in the 2nd
edition of the "Variation of Animals and Plants," 1875.)

LETTER 221. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 21st {1868}.

I know that you have been overworking yourself, and that makes you think
that you are doing nothing in science. If this is the case (which I do not
believe), your intellect has all run to letter-writing, for I never in all
my life received a pleasanter one than your last. It greatly amused us
all. How dreadfully severe you are on the Duke (221/1. The late Duke of
Argyll, whose "Reign of Law" Sir J.D. Hooker had been reading.): I really
think too severe, but then I am no fair judge, for a Duke, in my eyes, is
no common mortal, and not to be judged by common rules! I pity you from
the bottom of my soul about the address (221/2. Sir Joseph was President
of the British Association at Norwich in 1868: see "Life and Letters,"
III., page 100. The reference to "Insular Floras" is to Sir Joseph's
lecture at the Nottingham meeting of the British Association in 1866: see
"Life and Letters," III., page 47.): it makes my flesh creep; but when I
pitied you to Huxley, he would not join at all, and would only say that
you did and delivered your Insular Flora lecture so admirably in every way
that he would not bestow any pity on you. He felt certain that you would
keep your head high up. Nevertheless, I wish to God it was all over for
your sake. I think, from several long talks, that Huxley will give an
excellent and original lecture on Geograph. Distrib. of birds. I have been
working very hard—too hard of late—on Sexual Selection, which
turns out a gigantic subject; and almost every day new subjects turn up
requiring investigation and leading to endless letters and searches
through books. I am bothered, also, with heaps of foolish letters on all
sorts of subjects, but I am much interested in my subject, and sometimes
see gleams of light. All my other letters have prevented me indulging
myself in writing to you; but I suddenly found the locust grass (221/3. No
doubt the plants raised from seeds taken from locust dung sent by Mr.
Weale from South Africa. The case is mentioned in the fifth edition of the
"Origin," published in 1869, page 439.) yesterday in flower, and had to
despatch it at once. I suppose some of your assistants will be able to
make the genus out without great trouble. I have done little in experiment
of late, but I find that mignonette is absolutely sterile with pollen from
the same plant. Any one who saw stamen after stamen bending upwards and
shedding pollen over the stigmas of the same flower would declare that the
structure was an admirable contrivance for self-fertilisation. How utterly
mysterious it is that there should be some difference in ovules and
contents of pollen-grains (for the tubes penetrate own stigma) causing
fertilisation when these are taken from any two distinct plants, and
invariably leading to impotence when taken from the same plant! By Jove,
even Pan. (221/4. Pangenesis.) won't explain this. It is a comfort to me
to think that you will be surely haunted on your death-bed for not
honouring the great god Pan. I am quite delighted at what you say about my
book, and about Bentham; when writing it, I was much interested in some
parts, but latterly I thought quite as poorly of it as even the
"Athenaeum." It ought to be read abroad for the sake of the booksellers,
for five editions have come or are coming out abroad! I am ashamed to say
that I have read only the organic part of Lyell, and I admire all that I
have read as much as you. It is a comfort to know that possibly when one
is seventy years old one's brain may be good for work. It drives me mad,
and I know it does you too, that one has no time for reading anything
beyond what must be read: my room is encumbered with unread books. I agree
about Wallace's wonderful cleverness, but he is not cautious enough in my
opinion. I find I must (and I always distrust myself when I differ from
him) separate rather widely from him all about birds' nests and
protection; he is riding that hobby to death. I never read anything so
miserable as Andrew Murray's criticism on Wallace in the last number of
his Journal. (221/5. See "Journal of Travel and Natural History," Volume
I., No. 3, page 137, London, 1868, for Andrew Murray's "Reply to Mr.
Wallace's Theory of Birds' Nests," which appeared in the same volume, page
73. The "Journal" came to an end after the publication of one volume for
1867-8.) I believe this Journal will die, and I shall not cry: what a
contrast with the old "Natural History Review."

I am glad to hear that you are going (222/1. In his Presidential Address
at Norwich.) to touch on the statement that the belief in Natural
Selection is passing away. I do not suppose that even the "Athenaeum"
would pretend that the belief in the common descent of species is passing
away, and this is the more important point. This now almost universal
belief in the evolution (somehow) of species, I think may be fairly
attributed in large part to the "Origin." It would be well for you to look
at the short Introduction of Owen's "Anat. of Invertebrates," and see how
fully he admits the descent of species.

Of the "Origin," four English editions, one or two American, two French,
two German, one Dutch, one Italian, and several (as I was told) Russian
editions. The translations of my book on "Variation under Domestication"
are the results of the "Origin;" and of these two English, one American,
one German, one French, one Italian, and one Russian have appeared, or
will soon appear. Ernst Hackel wrote to me a week or two ago, that new
discussions and reviews of the "Origin" are continually still coming out
in Germany, where the interest on the subject certainly does not diminish.
I have seen some of these discussions, and they are good ones. I apprehend
that the interest on the subject has not died out in North America, from
observing in Professor and Mrs. Agassiz's Book on Brazil how exceedingly
anxious he is to destroy me. In regard to this country, every one can
judge for himself, but you would not say interest was dying out if you
were to look at the last number of the "Anthropological Review," in which
I am incessantly sneered at. I think Lyell's "Principles" will produce a
considerable effect. I hope I have given you the sort of information which
you want. My head is rather unsteady, which makes my handwriting worse
than usual.

If you argue about the non-acceptance of Natural Selection, it seems to me
a very striking fact that the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which seems
to every one now so certain and plain, was rejected by a man so
extraordinarily able as Leibnitz. The truth will not penetrate a
preoccupied mind.

Wallace (222/2. Wallace, "Westminster Review," July, 1867. The article
begins: "There is no more convincing proof of the truth of a comprehensive
theory, than its power of absorbing and finding a place for new facts, and
its capability of interpreting phenomena, which had been previously looked
upon as unaccountable anomalies..." Mr. Wallace illustrates his statement
that "a false theory will never stand this test," by Edward Forbes'
"polarity" speculations (see page 84 of the present volume) and Macleay's
"Circular" and "Quinarian System" published in his "Horae Entomologicae,"
1821, and developed by Swainson in the natural history volumes of
"Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia." Mr. Wallace says that a "considerable
number of well-known naturalists either spoke approvingly of it, or
advocated similar principles, and for a good many years it was decidedly
in the ascendant...yet it quite died out in a few short years, its very
existence is now a matter of history, and so rapid was its fall
that...Swainson, perhaps, lived to be the last man who believed in it.
Such is the course of a false theory. That of a true one is very
different, as may be well seen by the progress of opinion on the subject
of Natural Selection."

Here, (page 3) follows a passage on the overwhelming importance of Natural
Selection, underlined with apparent approval in Mr. Darwin's copy of the
review.), in the "Westminster Review," in an article on Protection has a
good passage, contrasting the success of Natural Selection and its growth
with the comprehension of new classes of facts (222/3. This rather obscure
phrase may be rendered: "its power of growth by the absorption of new
facts."), with false theories, such as the Quinarian Theory, and that of
Polarity, by poor Forbes, both of which were promulgated with high
advantages and the first temporarily accepted.

LETTER 223. TO G.H. LEWES.

(223/1. The following is printed from a draft letter inscribed by Mr.
Darwin "Against organs having been formed by direct action of medium in
distinct organisms. Chiefly luminous and electric organs and thorns." The
draft is carelessly written, and all but illegible.)

August 7th, 1868.

If you mean that in distinct animals, parts or organs, such for instance
as the luminous organs of insects or the electric organs of fishes, are
wholly the result of the external and internal conditions to which the
organs have been subjected, in so direct and inevitable a manner that they
could be developed whether of use or not to their possessor, I cannot
admit {your view}. I could almost as soon admit that the whole structure
of, for instance, a woodpecker, had thus originated; and that there should
be so close a relation between structure and external circumstances which
cannot directly affect the structure seems to me to {be} inadmissible.
Such organs as those above specified seem to me much too complex and
generally too well co-ordinated with the whole organisation, for the
admission that they result from conditions independently of Natural
Selection. The impression which I have taken, studying nature, is strong,
that in all cases, if we could collect all the forms which have ever
lived, we should have a close gradation from some most simple beginning.
If similar conditions sufficed, without the aid of Natural Selection, to
give similar parts or organs, independently of blood relationship, I doubt
much whether we should have that striking harmony between the affinities,
embryological development, geographical distribution, and geological
succession of all allied organisms. We should be much more puzzled than we
now are how to class, in a natural method, many forms. It is puzzling
enough to distinguish between resemblance due to descent and to
adaptation; but (fortunately for naturalists), owing to the strong power
of inheritance, and to excessively complex causes and laws of variability,
when the same end or object has been gained, somewhat different parts have
generally been modified, and modified in a different manner, so that the
resemblances due to descent and adaptation can commonly be distinguished.
I should just like to add, that we may understand each other, how I
suppose the luminous organs of insects, for instance, to have been
developed; but I depend on conjectures, for so few luminous insects exist
that we have no means of judging, by the preservation to the present day
of slightly modified forms, of the probable gradations through which the
organs have passed. Moreover, we do not know of what use these organs are.
We see that the tissues of many animals, {as} certain centipedes in
England, are liable, under unknown conditions of food, temperature, etc.,
to become occasionally luminous; just like the {illegible}: such
luminosity having been advantageous to certain insects, the tissues, I
suppose, become specialised for this purpose in an intensified degree; in
certain insects in one part, in other insects in other parts of the body.
Hence I believe that if all extinct insect-forms could be collected, we
should have gradations from the Elateridae, with their highly and
constantly luminous thoraxes, and from the Lampyridae, with their highly
luminous abdomens, to some ancient insects occasionally luminous like the
centipede.

I do not know, but suppose that the microscopical structure of the
luminous organs in the most different insects is nearly the same; and I
should attribute to inheritance from a common progenitor, the similarity
of the tissues, which under similar conditions, allowed them to vary in
the same manner, and thus, through Natural Selection for the same general
purpose, to arrive at the same result. Mutatis mutandis, I should apply
the same doctrine to the electric organs of fishes; but here I have to
make, in my own mind, the violent assumption that some ancient fish was
slightly electrical without having any special organs for the purpose. It
has been stated on evidence, not trustworthy, that certain reptiles are
electrical. It is, moreover, possible that the so-called electric organs,
whilst in a condition not highly developed, may have subserved some
distinct function: at least, I think, Matteucci could detect no pure
electricity in certain fishes provided with the proper organs. In one of
your letters you alluded to nails, claws, hoofs, etc. From their perfect
coadaptation with the whole rest of the organisation, I cannot admit that
they would have been formed by the direct action of the conditions of
life. H. Spencer's view that they were first developed from indurated
skin, the result of pressure on the extremities, seems to me probable.

In regard to thorns and spines I suppose that stunted and {illegible}
hardened processes were primarily left by the abortion of various
appendages, but I must believe that their extreme sharpness and hardness
is the result of fluctuating variability and "the survival of the
fittest." The precise form, curvature and colour of the thorns I freely
admit to be the result of the laws of growth of each particular plant, or
of their conditions, internal and external. It would be an astounding fact
if any varying plant suddenly produced, without the aid of reversion or
selection, perfect thorns. That Natural Selection would tend to produce
the most formidable thorns will be admitted by every one who has observed
the distribution in South America and Africa (vide Livingstone) of
thorn-bearing plants, for they always appear where the bushes grow
isolated and are exposed to the attacks of mammals. Even in England it has
been noticed that all spine-bearing and sting-bearing plants are palatable
to quadrupeds, when the thorns are crushed. With respect to the Malayan
climbing Palm, what I meant to express is that the admirable hooks were
perhaps not first developed for climbing; but having been developed for
protection were subsequently used, and perhaps further modified for
climbing.

LETTER 224. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 8th {1868}.

About the "Pall Mall." (224/1. "Pall Mall Gazette," August 22nd, 1868. In
an article headed "Dr. Hooker on Religion and Science," and referring to
the British Association address, the writer objects to any supposed
opposition between religion and science. "Religion," he says, "is your
opinion upon one set of subjects, science your opinion upon another set of
subjects." But he forgets that on one side we have opinions assumed to be
revealed truths; and this is a condition which either results in the
further opinion that those who bring forward irreconcilable facts are more
or less wicked, or in a change of front on the religious side, by which
theological opinion "shifts its ground to meet the requirements of every
new fact that science establishes, and every old error that science
exposes" (Dr. Hooker as quoted by the "Pall Mall"). If theologians had
been in the habit of recognising that, in the words of the "Pall Mall"
writer, "Science is a general name for human knowledge in its most
definite and general shape, whatever may be the object of that knowledge,"
probably Sir Joseph Hooker's remarks would never have been made.) I do not
agree that the article was at all right; it struck me as monstrous (and
answered on the spot by the "Morning Advertiser") that religion did not
attack science. When, however, I say not at all right, I am not sure
whether it would not be wisest for scientific men quite to ignore the
whole subject of religion. Goldwin Smith, who has been lunching here,
coming with the Nortons (son of Professor Norton and friend of Asa Gray),
who have taken for four months Keston Rectory, was strongly of opinion it
was a mistake. Several persons have spoken strongly to me as very much
admiring your address. For chance of you caring to see yourself in a
French dress, I send a journal; also with a weak article by Agassiz on
Geographical Distribution. Berkeley has sent me his address (224/2. The
Rev. M.J. Berkeley was President of Section D at Norwich in 1868.), so I
have had a fair excuse for writing to him. I differ from you: I could
hardly bear to shake hands with the "Sugar of Lead" (224/3. "You know Mrs.
Carlyle said that Owen's sweetness reminded her of sugar of lead." (Huxley
to Tyndall, May 13th, 1887: Huxley's "Life," II., page 167.), which I
never heard before: it is capital. I am so very glad you will come here
with Asa Gray, as if I am bad he will not be dull. We shall ask the
Nortons to come to dinner. On Saturday, Wallace (and probably Mrs. W.), J.
Jenner Weir (a very good man), and Blyth, and I fear not Bates, are coming
to stay the Sunday. The thought makes me rather nervous; but I shall enjoy
it immensely if it does not kill me. How I wish it was possible for you to
be here!

LETTER 225. TO M.J. BERKELEY. Down, September 7th, 1868.

I am very much obliged to you for having sent me your address (225/1.
Address to Section D of the British Association. ("Brit. Assoc. Report,"
Norwich meeting, 1868, page 83.))...for I thus gain a fair excuse for
troubling you with this note to thank you for your most kind and extremely
honourable notice of my works.

When I tell you that ever since I was an undergraduate at Cambridge I have
felt towards you the most unfeigned respect, from all that I continually
heard from poor dear Henslow and others of your great knowledge and
original researches, you will believe me when I say that I have rarely in
my life been more gratified than by reading your address; though I feel
that you speak much too strongly of what I have done. Your notice of
pangenesis (225/3. "It would be unpardonable to finish these somewhat
desultory remarks without adverting to one of the most interesting
subjects of the day,—the Darwinian doctrine of pangenesis...Like
everything which comes from the pen of a writer whom I have no hesitation,
so far as my judgment goes, in considering as by far the greatest observer
of our age, whatever may be thought of his theories when carried out to
their extreme results, the subject demands a careful and impartial
consideration." (Berkeley, page 86.)) has particularly pleased me, for it
has been generally neglected or disliked by my friends; yet I fully expect
that it will some day be more successful. I believe I quite agree with you
in the manner in which the cast-off atoms or so-called gemmules probably
act (225/4. "Assuming the general truth of the theory that molecules
endowed with certain attributes are cast off by the component cells of
such infinitesimal minuteness as to be capable of circulating with the
fluids, and in the end to be present in the unimpregnated embryo-cell and
spermatozoid...it seems to me far more probable that they should be
capable under favourable circumstances of exercising an influence
analogous to that which is exercised by the contents of the pollen-tube or
spermatozoid on the embryo-sac or ovum, than that these particles should
be themselves developed into cells" (Berkeley, page 87).): I have never
supposed that they were developed into free cells, but that they
penetrated other nascent cells and modified their subsequent development.
This process I have actually compared with ordinary fertilisation. The
cells thus modified, I suppose cast off in their turn modified gemmules,
which again combine with other nascent cells, and so on. But I must not
trouble you any further.

LETTER 226. TO AUGUST WEISMANN. Down, October 22nd, 1868.

I am very much obliged for your kind letter, and I have waited for a week
before answering it in hopes of receiving the "kleine Schrift" (226/1. The
"kleine Schrift" is "Ueber die Berechtigung der Darwin'schen Theorie,"
Leipzig, 1868. The "Anhang" is "Ueber den Einfluss der Wanderung und
raumlichen Isolirung auf die Artbilding.") to which you allude; but I fear
it is lost, which I am much surprised at, as I have seldom failed to
receive anything sent by the post.

As I do not know the title, and cannot order a copy, I should be very much
obliged if you can spare another.

I am delighted that you, with whose name I am familiar, should approve of
my work. I entirely agree with what you say about each species varying
according to its own peculiar laws; but at the same time it must, I think,
be admitted that the variations of most species have in the lapse of ages
been extremely diversified, for I do not see how it can be otherwise
explained that so many forms have acquired analogous structures for the
same general object, independently of descent. I am very glad to hear that
you have been arguing against Nageli's law of perfectibility, which seems
to me superfluous. Others hold similar views, but none of them define what
this "perfection" is which cannot be gradually attained through Natural
Selection. I thought M. Wagner's first pamphlet (226/2. Wagner's first
essay, "Die Darwin'sche Theorie und das Migrationsgesetz," 1868, is a
separately published pamphlet of 62 pages. In the preface the author
states that it is a fuller version of a paper read before the Royal
Academy of Science at Munich in March 1868. We are not able to say which
of Wagner's writings is referred to as the second pamphlet; his second
well-known essay, "Ueber den Einfluss der Geogr. Isolirung," etc., is of
later date, viz., 1870.) (for I have not yet had time to read the second)
very good and interesting; but I think that he greatly overrates the
necessity for emigration and isolation. I doubt whether he has reflected
on what must occur when his forms colonise a new country, unless they vary
during the very first generation; nor does he attach, I think, sufficient
weight to the cases of what I have called unconscious selection by man: in
these cases races are modified by the preservation of the best and the
destruction of the worst, without any isolation.

I sympathise with you most sincerely on the state of your eyesight: it is
indeed the most fearful evil which can happen to any one who, like
yourself, is earnestly attached to the pursuit of natural knowledge.

LETTER 227. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 18th {1869}.

Since I wrote a few days ago and sent off three copies of your book, I
have read the English translation (227/1. "Facts and Arguments for
Darwin." See "Life and Letters," III., page 37.), and cannot deny myself
the pleasure of once again expressing to you my warm admiration. I might,
but will not, repeat my thanks for the very honourable manner in which you
often mention my name; but I can truly say that I look at the publication
of your essay as one of the greatest honours ever conferred on me. Nothing
can be more profound and striking than your observations on development
and classification. I am very glad that you have added your justification
in regard to the metamorphoses of insects; for your conclusion now seems
in the highest degree probable. (227/2. See "Facts and Arguments for
Darwin," page 119 (note), where F. Muller gives his reasons for the belief
that the "complete metamorphosis" of insects was not a character of the
form from which insects have sprung: his argument largely depends on
considerations drawn from the study of the neuroptera.) I have re-read
many parts, especially that on cirripedes, with the liveliest interest. I
had almost forgotten your discussion on the retrograde development of the
Rhizocephala. What an admirable illustration it affords of my whole
doctrine! A man must indeed be a bigot in favour of separate acts of
creation if he is not staggered after reading your essay; but I fear that
it is too deep for English readers, except for a select few.

LETTER 228. TO A.R. WALLACE. March 27th {1869}.

I have lately (i.e., in new edition of the "Origin") (228/1. Fifth
edition, 1869, pages 150-57.) been moderating my zeal, and attributing
much more to mere useless variability. I did think I would send you the
sheet, but I daresay you would not care to see it, in which I discuss
Nageli's Essay on Natural Selection not affecting characters of no
functional importance, and which yet are of high classificatory
importance. Hooker is pretty well satisfied with what I have said on this
head.

We shall be at home this day week, taking two days on the journey, and
right glad I shall be. The whole has been a failure to me, but much
enjoyment to the young...My wife has ailed a good deal nearly all the
time; so that I loathe the place, with all its beauty. I was glad to hear
what you thought of F. Muller, and I agree wholly with you. Your letter
came at the nick of time, for I was writing on the very day to Muller, and
I passed on your approbation of Chaps. X. and XI. Some time I should like
to borrow the "Transactions of the New Zealand Institute," so as to read
Colenso's article. (229/1. Colenso, "On the Maori Races of New Zealand."
"N.Z. Inst. Trans." 1868, Pt. 3.) You must read Huxley v. Comte (229/2.
"The Scientific Aspects of Positivism." "Fortnightly Review," 1869, page
652, and "Lay Sermons," 1870, page 162. This was a reply to Mr. Congreve's
article, "Mr. Huxley on M. Comte," published in the April number of the
"Fortnightly," page 407, which had been written in criticism of Huxley's
article in the February number of the "Fortnightly," page 128, "On the
Physical Basis of Life."); he never wrote anything so clever before, and
has smashed everybody right and left in grand style. I had a vague wish to
read Comte, and so had George, but he has entirely cured us of any such
vain wish.

There is another article (229/3. "North British Review," Volume 50, 1869:
"Geological Time," page 406. The papers reviewed are Sir William Thomson,
"Trans. R. Soc. Edin." 1862; "Phil. Mag." 1863; Thomson and Tait, "Natural
Philosophy," Volume I., App. D; Sir W. Thomson, "Proc. R. Soc. Edin."
1865; "Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow," 1868 and 1869; "Macmillan's Mag." 1862;
Prof. Huxley, Presidential Address, "Geol. Soc. London," February, 1869;
Dr. Hooker, Presidential Address, "Brit. Assoc." Norwich, 1868. Also the
review on the "Origin" in the "North British Review," 1867, by Fleeming
Jenkin, and an article in the "Pall Mall Gazette," May 3rd, 1869. The
author treats the last-named with contempt as the work of an anonymous
journalist, apparently unconscious of his own similar position.) just come
out in last "North British," by some great mathematician, which is
admirably done; he has a severe fling at you (229/4. The author of the
"North British" article appears to us, at page 408, to misunderstand or
misinterpret Sir J.D. Hooker's parable on "underpinning." See "Life and
Letters," III., page 101 (note). Sir Joseph is attacked with quite
unnecessary vehemence on another point at page 413.), but the article is
directed against Huxley and for Thomson. This review shows me—not
that I required being shown—how devilish a clever fellow Huxley is,
for the reviewer cannot help admiring his abilities. There are some good
specimens of mathematical arrogance in the review, and incidentally he
shows how often astronomers have arrived at conclusions which are now seen
to be mistaken; so that geologists might truly answer that we must be slow
in admitting your conclusions. Nevertheless, all uniformitarians had
better at once cry "peccavi,"—not but what I feel a conviction that
the world will be found rather older than Thomson makes it, and far older
than the reviewer makes it. I am glad I have faced and admitted the
difficulty in the last edition of the "Origin," of which I suppose you
received, according to order, a copy.

LETTER 230. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 7th {1869}.

There never was such a good man as you for telling me things which I like
to hear. I am not at all surprised that Hallett has found some varieties
of wheat could not be improved in certain desirable qualities as quickly
as at first. All experience shows this with animals; but it would, I
think, be rash to assume, judging from actual experience, that a little
more improvement could not be got in the course of a century, and
theoretically very improbable that after a few thousands {of years} rest
there would not be a start in the same line of variation. What astonishes
me as against experience, and what I cannot believe, is that varieties
already improved or modified do not vary in other respects. I think he
must have generalised from two or three spontaneously fixed varieties.
Even in seedlings from the same capsule some vary much more than others;
so it is with sub-varieties and varieties. (230/1. In a letter of August
13th, 1869, Sir J.D. Hooker wrote correcting Mr. Darwin's impression: "I
did not mean to imply that Hallett affirmed that all variation stopped—far
from it: he maintained the contrary, but if I understand him aright, he
soon arrives at a point beyond which any further accumulation in the
direction sought is so small and so slow that practically a fixity of type
(not absolute fixity, however) is the result.")

It is a grand fact about Anoplotherium (230/2. This perhaps refers to the
existence of Anoplotherium in the S. American Eocene formation: it is one
of the points in which the fauna of S. America resembles Europe rather
than N. America. (See Wallace "Geographical Distribution," I., page
148.)), and shows how even terrestrial quadrupeds had time formerly to
spread to very distinct regions. At each epoch the world tends to get
peopled pretty uniformly, which is a blessing for Geology.

The article in "N. British Review" (230/3. See Letter 229.) is well worth
reading scientifically; George D. and Erasmus were delighted with it. How
the author does hit! It was a euphuism to speak of a fling at you: it was
a kick. He is very unfair to Huxley, and accuses him of "quibbling," etc.;
yet the author cannot help admiring him extremely. I know I felt very
small when I finished the article. You will be amused to observe that
geologists have all been misled by Playfair, who was misled by two of the
greatest mathematicians! And there are other such cases; so we could turn
round and show your reviewer how cautious geologists ought to be in
trusting mathematicians.

There is another excellent original article, I feel sure by McClennan, on
Primeval Man, well worth reading.

I do not quite agree about Sabine: he is unlike every other soldier or
sailor I ever heard of if he would not put his second leg into the tomb
with more satisfaction as K.C.B. than as a simple man. I quite agree that
the Government ought to have made him long ago, but what does the Government
know or care for Science? So much for your splenditious letter.

LETTER 231. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, August 14th {1869?}

I write one line to tell you that you are a real good man to propose
coming here for a Sunday after Exeter. Do keep to this good intention...I
am sure Exeter and your other visit will do you good. I often wonder how
you stand all your multifarious work.

I quite agree about the folly of the endless subscriptions for dead men;
but Faraday is an exception, and if you will pay three guineas for me, it
will save me some trouble; but it will be best to enclose a cheque, which,
as you will see, must be endorsed. If you read the "North British Review,"
you will like to know that George has convinced me, from correspondence in
style, and spirit, that the article is by Tait, the co-worker with
Thomson.

I was much surprised at the leaves of Drosophyllum being always rolled
backwards at their tips, but did not know that it was a unique character.

(PLATE: SIR J.D. HOOKER, 1870? From a photograph by Wallich.)

LETTER 232. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 13th {1869}.

I heard yesterday from a relation who had seen in a newspaper that you
were C.B. I must write one line to say "Hurrah," though I wish it had been
K.C.B., as it assuredly ought to have been; but I suppose they look at
K.C.B. before C.B. as a dukedom before an earldom.

We had a very successful week in London, and I was unusually well and saw
a good many persons, which, when well, is a great pleasure to me. I had a
jolly talk with Huxley, amongst others. And now I am at the same work as
before, and shall be for another two months—namely, putting ugly
sentences rather straighter; and I am sick of the work, and, as the
subject is all on sexual selection, I am weary of everlasting males and
females, cocks and hens.

It is a shame to bother you, but I should like some time to hear about the
C.B. affair.

I have read one or two interesting brochures lately—viz., Stirling
the Hegelian versus Huxley and protoplasm; Tylor in "Journal of Royal
Institute" on the survivals of old thought in modern civilisation.

Farewell. I am as dull as a duck, both male and female.

To Dr. Hooker, C.B., F.R.S.

Dr. Hooker, K.C.B. (This looks better).

P.S. I hear a good account of Bentham's last address (232/1. Presidential
Address, chiefly on Geographical Distribution, delivered before the "Linn.
Soc." May 24th, 1869.), which I am now going to read.

I find that I have blundered about Bentham's address. Lyell was speaking
about one that I read some months ago; but I read half of it again last
night, and shall finish it. Some passages are either new or were not
studied enough by me before. It strikes me as admirable, as it did on the
first reading, though I differ in some few points.

Such an address is worth its weight in gold, I should think, in making
converts to our views. Lyell tells me that Bunbury has been wonderfully
impressed with it, and he never before thought anything of our views on
evolution.

P.S. (2). I have just read, and like very much, your review of Schimper.
(232/2. A review of Schimper's "Traite de Paleontologie Vegetale," the
first portion of which was published in 1869. "Nature," November 11th,
1869, page 48.)

LETTER 233. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, November 19th {1869}.

Thank you much for telling me all about the C.B., for I much wished to
hear. It pleases me extremely that the Government have done this much; and
as the K.C.B.'s are limited in number (which I did not know), I excuse it.
I will not mention what you have told me to any one, as it would be
Murchisonian. But what a shame it is to use this expression, for I fully
believe that Murchison would take any trouble to get any token of honour
for any man of science.

I like all scientific periodicals, including poor "Scientific Opinion,"
and I think higher than you do of "Nature." Lord, what a rhapsody that was
of Goethe, but how well translated; it seemed to me, as I told Huxley, as
if written by the maddest English scholar. It is poetry, and can I say
anything more severe? The last number of the "Academy" was splendid, and I
hope it will soon come out fortnightly. I wish "Nature" would search more
carefully all foreign journals and transactions.

I am now reading a German thick pamphlet (233/1. "Die Abhangigheit der
Pflanzengestalt von Klima und Boden. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre von der
Enstehung und Verbreitung der Arten, etc." Festschrift zur 43 Versammlung
Deutscher Naturforscher und Aertze in Innsbruck (Innsbruck, 1869).) by
Kerner on Tubocytisus; if you come across it, look at the map of the
distribution of the eighteen quasi-species, and at the genealogical tree.
If the latter, as the author says, was constructed solely from the
affinities of the forms, then the distribution is wonderfully interesting;
we may see the very steps of the formation of a species. If you study the
genealogical tree and map, you will almost understand the book. The two
old parent connecting links just keep alive in two or three areas; then we
have four widely extended species, their descendants; and from them little
groups of newer descendants inhabiting rather small areas...

LETTER 234. TO CAMILLE DARESTE. Down, November 20th, 1869.

Dear Sir,

I am glad that you are a candidate for the Chair of Physiology in Paris.
As you are aware from my published works, I have always considered your
investigations on the production of monstrosities as full of interest. No
subject is at the present time more important, as far as my judgment goes,
than the ascertaining by experiment how far structure can be modified by
the direct action of changed conditions; and you have thrown much light on
this subject.

I observe that several naturalists in various parts of Europe have lately
maintained that it is now of the highest interest for science to endeavour
to lessen, as far as possible, our profound ignorance on the cause of each
individual variation; and, as Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire long ago remarked,
monstrosities cannot be separated by any distinct line from slighter
variations.

With my best wishes for your success in obtaining the Professorship, and
with sincere respect.

I have the honour to remain, dear sir, Yours faithfully, CHARLES DARWIN.

CHAPTER 1.V.—EVOLUTION, 1870-1882.

LETTER 235. TO J. JENNER WEIR. Down, March 17th {1870}.

It is my decided opinion that you ought to send an account to some
scientific society, and I think to the Royal Society. (235/1. Mr. Jenner
Weir's case is given in "Animals and Plants," Edition II., Volume I., page
435, and does not appear to have been published elsewhere. The facts are
briefly that a horse, the offspring of a mare of Lord Mostyn's, which had
previously borne a foal by a quagga, showed a number of quagga-like
characters, such as stripes, low-growing mane, and elongated hoofs. The
passage in "Animals and Plants," to which he directs Mr. Weir's attention
in reference to Carpenter's objection, is in Edition I., Volume I., page
405: "It is a most improbable hypothesis that the mere blood of one
individual should affect the reproductive organs of another individual in
such a manner as to modify the subsequent offspring. The analogy from the
direct action of foreign pollen on the ovarium and seed-coats of the
mother plant strongly supports the belief that the male element acts
directly on the reproductive organs of the female, wonderful as is this
action, and not through the intervention of the crossed embryo." For
references to Mr. Galton's experiments on transfusion of blood, see Letter
273.) I would communicate it if you so decide. You might give as a
preliminary reason the publication in the "Transactions" of the celebrated
Morton case and the pig case by Mr. Giles. You might also allude to the
evident physiological importance of such facts as bearing on the theory of
generation. Whether it would be prudent to allude to despised pangenesis I
cannot say, but I fully believe pangenesis will have its successful day.
Pray ascertain carefully the colour of the dam and sire. See about duns in
my book {"Animals and Plants"}, Volume I., page 55. The extension of the
mane and form of hoofs are grand new facts. Is the hair of your horse at
all curly? for {an} observed case {is} given by me (Volume II., page 325)
from Azara of correlation of forms of hoof with curly hairs. See also in
my book (Volume I., page 55; Volume II., page 41) how exceedingly rare
stripes are on the faces of horses in England. Give the age of your horse.

You are aware that Dr. Carpenter and others have tried to account for the
effects of a first impregnation from the influence of the blood of the
crossed embryo; but with physiologists who believe that the reproductive
elements are actually formed by the reproductive glands, this view is
inconsistent. Pray look at what I have said in "Domestic Animals" (Volume
I., pages 402-5) against this doctrine. It seems to me more probable that
the gemmules affect the ovaria alone. I remember formerly speculating,
like you, on the assertion that wives grow like their husbands; but how
impossible to eliminate effects of imitation and same habits of life, etc.
Your letter has interested me profoundly.

P.S.—Since publishing I have heard of additional cases—a very
good one in regard to Westphalian pigs crossed by English boar, and all
subsequent offspring affected, given in "Illust. Landwirth-Zeitung," 1868,
page 143.

I have shown that mules are often striped, though neither parent may be
striped,—due to ancient reversion. Now, Fritz Muller writes to me
from S. Brazil: "I have been assured, by persons who certainly never had
heard of Lord Morton's mare, that mares which have borne hybrids to an ass
are particularly liable to produce afterwards striped ass-colts." So a
previous fertilisation apparently gives to the subsequent offspring a
tendency to certain characters, as well as characters actually possessed
by the first male.

In the reprint (not called a second edition) of my "Domestic Animals" I
give a good additional case of subsequent progeny of hairless dog being
hairy from effects of first impregnation.

P.S. 2nd. The suggestion, no doubt, is superfluous, but you ought, I
think, to measure extension of mane beyond a line joining front or back of
ears, and compare with horse. Also the measure (and give comparison with
horse), length, breadth, and depth of hoofs.

LETTER 236. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, July 12th {1870}.

Your conclusion that all speculation about preordination is idle waste of
time is the only wise one; but how difficult it is not to speculate! My
theology is a simple muddle; I cannot look at the universe as the result
of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design or indeed
of design of any kind, in the details. As for each variation that has ever
occurred having been preordained for a special end, I can no more believe
in it than that the spot on which each drop of rain falls has been
specially ordained.

Spontaneous generation seems almost as great a puzzle as preordination. I
cannot persuade myself that such a multiplicity of organisms can have been
produced, like crystals, in Bastian's (236/1. On September 2nd, 1872, Mr.
Darwin wrote to Mr. Wallace, in reference to the latter's review of "The
Beginnings of Life," by H.C. Bastian (1872), in "Nature," 1872, pages
284-99: "At present I should prefer any mad hypothesis, such as that every
disintegrated molecule of the lowest forms can reproduce the parent-form;
and that these molecules are universally distributed, and that they do not
lose their vital power until heated to such a temperature that they
decompose like dead organic particles.") solutions of the same kind. I am
astonished that, as yet, I have met with no allusion to Wyman's positive
statement (236/2. "Observations and Experiments on Living Organisms in
Heated Water," by Jeffries Wyman, Prof. of Anatomy, Harvard Coll. ("Amer.
Journ. Sci." XLIV., 1867, page 152.) Solutions of organic matter in
hermetically sealed flasks were immersed in boiling water for various
periods. "No infusoria of any kind appeared if the boiling was prolonged
beyond a period of five hours.") that if the solutions are boiled for five
hours no organisms appear; yet, if my memory serves me, the solutions when
opened to air immediately became stocked. Against all evidence, I cannot
avoid suspecting that organic particles (my "gemmules" from the separate
cells of the lower creatures!) will keep alive and afterwards multiply
under proper conditions.

What an interesting problem it is.

LETTER 237. TO W.B. TEGETMEIER. Down, July 15th {1870}.

It is very long since I have heard from you, and I am much obliged for
your letter. It is good news that you are going to bring out a new edition
of your Poultry book (237/1. "The Poultry Book," 1872.), and you are quite
at liberty to use all my materials. Thanks for the curious case of the
wild duck variation: I have heard of other instances of a tendency to vary
in one out of a large litter or family. I have too many things in hand at
present to profit by your offer of the loan of the American Poultry book.

Pray keep firm to your idea of working out the subject of analogous
variations (237/2. "By this term I mean that similar characters
occasionally make their appearance in the several varieties or races
descended from the same species, and more rarely in the offspring of
widely distinct species" ("Animals and Plants," II., Edition II., page
340).) with pigeons; I really think you might thus make a novel and
valuable contribution to science. I can, however, quite understand how
much your time must be occupied with the never-ending, always-beginning
editorial cares.

I keep much as usual, and crawl on with my work.

LETTER 238. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, September 27th {1870}.

Yours was a splendid letter, and I was very curious to hear something
about the Liverpool meeting (238/1. Mr. Huxley was President of the
British Association at Liverpool in 1870. His Presidential Address on
"Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" is reprinted in his collected Essays, VIII.,
page 229. Some account of the meeting is given in Huxley's "Life and
Letters," Volume I., pages 332, 336.), which I much wished to be
successful for Huxley's sake. I am surprised that you think his address
would not have been clear to the public; it seemed to me as clear as
water. The general line of his argument might have been answered by the
case of spontaneous combustion: tens of thousands of cases of things
having been seen to be set on fire would be no true argument against any
one who maintained that flames sometimes spontaneously burst forth. I am
delighted at the apotheosis of Sir Roderick; I can fancy what neat and
appropriate speeches he would make to each nobleman as he entered the
gates of heaven. You ask what I think about Tyndall's lecture (238/2.
Tyndall's lecture was "On the Scientific Uses of the Imagination."): it
seemed to me grand and very interesting, though I could not from ignorance
quite follow some parts, and I longed to tell him how immensely it would
have been improved if all the first part had been made very much less
egotistical. George independently arrived at the same conclusion, and
liked all the latter part extremely. He thought the first part not only
egotistical, but rather clap-trap.

How well Tyndall puts the "as if" manner of philosophising, and shows that
it is justifiable. Some of those confounded Frenchmen have lately been
pitching into me for using this form of proof or argument.

I have just read Rolleston's address in "Nature" (238/3. Presidential
Address to the Biological Section, British Association, 1870. "Nature,"
September 22nd, 1870, page 423. Rolleston referred to the vitality of
seeds in soil, a subject on which Darwin made occasional observations. See
"Life and Letters," II., page 65.): his style is quite unparalleled! I see
he quotes you about seed, so yesterday I went and observed more carefully
the case given in the enclosed paper, which perhaps you might like to read
and burn.

How true and good what you say about Lyell. He is always the same; Dohrn
was here yesterday, and was remarking that no one stood higher in the
public estimation of Germany than Lyell.

I am truly and profoundly glad that you are thinking of some general work
on Geographical Distribution, or so forth; I hope to God that your
incessant occupations may not interrupt this intention. As for my book, I
shall not have done the accursed proofs till the end of November (238/4.
The proofs of the "Descent of Man" were finished on January 15th, 1871.):
good Lord, what a muddled head I have got on my wretched old shoulders.

LETTER 239. TO H. SETTEGAST. Down, September 29th, 1870.

I am very much obliged for your kind letter and present of your beautiful
volume. (239/1. "Die Thierzucht," 1868.) Your work is not new to me, for I
heard it so highly spoken of that I procured a copy of the first edition.
It was a great gratification to me to find a man who had long studied with
a philosophical spirit our domesticated animals, and who was highly
competent to judge, agreeing to a large extent with my views. I regretted
much that I had not known your work when I published my last volumes.

I am surprised and pleased to hear that science is not quite forgotten
under the present exciting state of affairs. Every one whom I know in
England is an enthusiastic wisher for the full and complete success of
Germany.

P.S. I will give one of my two copies of your work to some public
scientific library in London.

LETTER 240. TO THE EDITOR OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE." Down, March 24th
{1871}.

Mr. Darwin presents his compliments to the Editor, and would be greatly
obliged if he would address and post the enclosed letter to the author of
the two admirable reviews of the "Descent of Man." (240/1. The notices of
the "Descent of Man," published in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of March 20th
and 21st, 1871, were by Mr. John Morley. We are indebted to the Editor of
the "Pall Mall Gazette" for kindly allowing us to consult his file of the
journal.)

LETTER 241. TO JOHN MORLEY. Down, March 24th, 1871.

From the spirit of your review in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of my last book,
which has given me great pleasure, I have thought that you would perhaps
inform me on one point, withholding, if you please, your name.

You say that my phraseology on beauty is "loose scientifically, and
philosophically most misleading." (241/1. "Mr. Darwin's work is one of
those rare and capital achievements of intellect which effect a grave
modification throughout all the highest departments of the realm of
opinion...There is throughout the description and examination of Sexual
Selection a way of speaking of beauty, which seems to us to be highly
unphilosophical, because it assumes a certain theory of beauty, which the
most competent modern thinkers are too far from accepting, to allow its
assumption to be quite judicious...Why should we only find the aesthetic
quality in birds wonderful, when it happens to coincide with our own? In
other words, why attribute to them conscious aesthetic qualities at all?
There is no more positive reason for attributing aesthetic consciousness
to the Argus pheasant than there is for attributing to bees geometric
consciousness of the hexagonal prisms and rhombic plates of the hive which
they so marvellously construct. Hence the phraseology which Mr. Darwin
employs in this part of the subject, though not affecting the degree of
probability which may belong to this theory, seems to us to be very loose
scientifically, and philosophically most misleading."—"Pall Mall
Gazette.") This is not at all improbable, as it is almost a lifetime since
I attended to the philosophy of aesthetics, and did not then think that I
should ever make use of my conclusions. Can you refer me to any one or two
books (for my power of reading is not great) which would illumine me? or
can you explain in one or two sentences how I err? Perhaps it would be
best for me to explain what I mean by the sense of beauty in its lowest
stage of development, and which can only apply to animals. When an intense
colour, or two tints in harmony, or a recurrent and symmetrical figure
please the eye, or a single sweet note pleases the ear, I call this a
sense of beauty; and with this meaning I have spoken (though I now see in
not a sufficiently guarded manner) of a taste for the beautiful being the
same in mankind (for all savages admire bits of bright cloth, beads,
plumes, etc.) and in the lower animals. If the blue and yellow plumage of
a macaw (241/2. "What man deems the horrible contrasts of yellow and blue
attract the macaw, while ball-and-socket-plumage attracts the Argus
pheasant"—"Pall Mall Gazette," March 21st, 1871, page 1075.) pleases
the eye of this bird, I should say that it had a sense of beauty, although
its taste was bad according to our standard. Now, will you have the
kindness to tell me how I can learn to see the error of my ways? Of course
I recognise, as indeed I have remarked in my book, that the sense of
beauty in the case of scenery, pictures, etc., is something infinitely
complex, depending on varied associations and culture of the mind. From a
very interesting review in the "Spectator," and from your and Wallace's
review, I perceive that I have made a great oversight in not having said
what little I could on the acquisition of the sense for the beautiful by
man and the lower animals. It would indeed be an immense advantage to an
author if he could read such criticisms as yours before publishing. At
page 11 of your review you accidentally misquote my words placed by you
within inverted commas, from my Volume II., page 354: I say that "man
cannot endure any great change," and the omitted words "any great" make
all the difference in the discussion. (241/3. "Mr. Darwin tells us, and
gives us excellent reasons for thinking, that 'the men of each race prefer
what they are accustomed to behold; they cannot endure change.' Yet is
there not an inconsistency between this fact and the other that one race
differs from another exactly because novelties presented themselves, and
were eagerly seized and propagated?")

Permit me to add a few other remarks. I believe your criticism is quite
just about my deficient historic spirit, for I am aware of my ignorance in
this line. (241/4. "In the historic spirit, however, Mr. Darwin must
fairly be pronounced deficient. When, for instance, he speaks of the
'great sin of slavery' having been general among primitive nations, he
forgets that, though to hold a slave would be a sinful degradation to a
European to-day, the practice of turning prisoners of war into slaves,
instead of butchering them, was not a sin at all, but marked a decided
improvement in human manners.") On the other hand, if you should ever be
led to read again Chapter III., and especially Chapter V., I think you
will find that I am not amenable to all your strictures; though I felt
that I was walking on a path unknown to me and full of pitfalls; but I had
the advantage of previous discussions by able men. I tried to say most
emphatically that a great philosopher, law-giver, etc., did far more for
the progress of mankind by his writings or his example than by leaving a
numerous offspring. I have endeavoured to show how the struggle for
existence between tribe and tribe depends on an advance in the moral and
intellectual qualities of the members, and not merely on their capacity of
obtaining food. When I speak of the necessity of a struggle for existence
in order that mankind should advance still higher in the scale, I do not
refer to the MOST, but "to the MORE highly gifted men" being successful in
the battle for life; I referred to my supposition of the men in any
country being divided into two equal bodies—viz., the more and the
less highly gifted, and to the former on an average succeeding best.

But I have much cause to apologise for the length of this ill-expressed
letter. My sole excuse is the extraordinary interest which I have felt in
your review, and the pleasure which I have experienced in observing the
points which have attracted your attention. I must say one word more.
Having kept the subject of sexual selection in my mind for very many
years, and having become more and more satisfied with it, I feel great
confidence that as soon as the notion is rendered familiar to others, it
will be accepted, at least to a much greater extent than at present. With
sincere respect and thanks...

LETTER 242. TO JOHN MORLEY. Down, April 14th {1871}.

As this note requires no answer, I do not scruple to write a few lines to
say how faithful and full a resume you have given of my notions on the
moral sense in the "Pall Mall," and to make a few extenuating or
explanatory remarks. (242/1. "What is called the question of the moral
sense is really two: how the moral faculty is acquired, and how it is
regulated. Why do we obey conscience or feel pain in disobeying it? And
why does conscience prescribe one kind of action and condemn another kind?
To put it more technically, there is the question of the subjective
existence of conscience, and there is the question of its objective
prescriptions. First, why do I think it obligatory to do my duty? Second,
why do I think it my duty to do this and not do that? Although, however,
the second question ought to be treated independently, for reasons which
we shall presently suggest, the historical answer to it, or the various
grounds on which men have identified certain sorts of conduct with duty,
rather than conduct of the opposite sorts, throws light on the other
question of the conditions of growth of the idea of duty as a sovereign
and imperial director. Mr. Darwin seems to us not to have perfectly
recognised the logical separation between the two sides of the moral sense
question. For example, he says (i. 97) that 'philosophers of the
derivative school of morals formerly assumed that the foundation of
morality lay in a form of Selfishness; but more recently in the Greatest
Happiness principle.' But Mr. Mill, to whom Mr. Darwin refers, has
expressly shown that the Greatest Happiness principle is a STANDARD, and
not a FOUNDATION, and that its validity as a standard of right and wrong
action is just as tenable by one who believes the moral sense to be
innate, as by one who holds that it is acquired. He says distinctly that
the social feelings of mankind form 'the natural basis of sentiment for
utilitarian morality.' So far from holding the Greatest Happiness
principle to be the foundation of morality, he would describe it as the
forming principle of the superstructure of which the social feelings of
mankind are the foundation. Between Mr. Darwin and utilitarians, as
utilitarians, there is no such quarrel as he would appear to suppose. The
narrowest utilitarian could say little more than Mr. Darwin says (ii.
393): 'As all men desire their own happiness, praise or blame is bestowed
on actions and motives according as they tend to this end; and, as
happiness is an essential part of the general good, the Greatest Happiness
principle INDIRECTLY serves as a NEARLY safe standard of right and wrong.'
It is perhaps not impertinent to suspect that the faltering adverbs which
we have printed in italics indicate no more than the reluctance of a
half-conscious convert to pure utilitarianism. In another place (i. 98) he
admits that 'as all wish for happiness, the Greatest Happiness principle
will have become a most important secondary guide and object, the social
instincts, including sympathy, always serving as the primary impulse and
guide.' This is just what Mr. Mill says, only instead of calling the
principle a secondary guide, he would call it a standard, to distinguish
it from the social impulse, in which, as much as Mr. Darwin, he recognises
the base and foundation."—"Pall Mall Gazette," April 12th, 1871.)
How the mistake which I have made in speaking of greatest happiness as the
foundation of morals arose, is utterly unintelligible to me: any time
during the last several years I should have laughed such an idea to scorn.
Mr. Lecky never made a greater blunder, and your kindness has made you let
me off too easily. (242/2. In the first edition of the "Descent of Man,"
I., page 97, Mr. Lecky is quoted as one of those who assumed that the
"foundation of morality lay in a form of selfishness; but more recently in
the 'greatest happiness' principle." Mr. Lecky's name is omitted in this
connection in the second edition, page 120. In this edition Mr. Darwin
makes it clearer that he attaches most importance to the social instinct
as the "primary impulse and guide.") With respect to Mr. Mill, nothing
would have pleased me more than to have relied on his great authority with
respect to the social instincts, but the sentence which I quote at {Volume
I.} page 71 ("if, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate,
but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural") seems to me
somewhat contradictory with the other words which I quote, so that I did
not know what to think; more especially as he says so very little about
the social instincts. When I speak of intellectual activity as the
secondary basis of conscience, I meant in my own mind secondary in period
of development; but no one could be expected to understand so great an
ellipse. With reference to your last sentence, do you not think that man
might have retrograded in his parental, marriage, and other instincts
without having retrograded in his social instincts? and I do not think
that there is any evidence that man ever existed as a non-social animal. I
must add that I have been very glad to read your remarks on the supposed
case of the hive-bee: it affords an amusing contrast with what Miss Cobbe
has written in the "Theological Review." (242/3. Mr. Darwin says ("Descent
of Man" Edition I., Volume I., page 73; Edition II., page 99), "that if
men lived like bees our unmarried females would think it a sacred duty to
kill their brothers." Miss Cobbe remarks on this "that the principles of
social duty would be reversed" ("Theological Review," April 1872). Mr.
Morley, on the other hand, says of Darwin's assertion, that it is "as
reassuring as the most absolute of moralists could desire. For it is
tantamount to saying that the foundations of morality, the distinctions of
right and wrong, are deeply laid in the very conditions of social
existence; that there is in face of these conditions a positive and
definite difference between the moral and the immoral, the virtuous and
the vicious, the right and the wrong, in the actions of individuals
partaking of that social existence.") Undoubtedly the great principle of
acting for the good of all the members of the same community, and
therefore the good of the species, would still have held sovereign sway.

LETTER 243. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(243/1. Sir Joseph Hooker wrote (August 5th, 1871) to Darwin about Lord
Kelvin's Presidential Address at the Edinburgh meeting of the British
Association: "It seems to me to be very able indeed; and what a good
notion it gives of the gigantic achievement of mathematicians and
physicists!—it really made one giddy to read of them. I do not think
Huxley will thank him for his reference to him as a positive unbeliever in
spontaneous generation—these mathematicians do not seem to me to
distinguish between un-belief and a-belief. I know no other name for the
state of mind that is produced under the term scepticism. I had no idea
before that pure Mathematics had achieved such wonders in practical
science. The total absence of any allusion to Tyndall's labours, even when
comets are his theme, seems strange to me.")

Haredene, Albury, Guildford, August 6th {1871}.

I have read with greatest interest Thomson's address; but you say so
EXACTLY AND FULLY all that I think, that you have taken all the words from
my mouth; even about Tyndall. It is a gain that so wonderful a man, though
no naturalist, should become a convert to evolution; Huxley, it seems,
remarked in his speech to this effect. I should like to know what he means
about design,—I cannot in the least understand, for I presume he
does not believe in special interpositions. (243/2. See "British
Association Report," page cv. Lord Kelvin speaks very doubtfully of
evolution. After quoting the concluding passage of the "Origin," he goes
on, "I have omitted two sentences...describing briefly the hypothesis of
'the origin of species by Natural Selection,' because I have always felt
that this hypothesis does not contain the true theory of evolution, IF
EVOLUTION THERE HAS BEEN in biology" (the italics are not in the
original). Lord Kelvin then describes as a "most valuable and instructive
criticism," Sir John Herschel's remark that the doctrine of Natural
Selection is "too like the Laputan method of making books, and that it did
not sufficiently take into account a continually guiding and controlling
intelligence." But it should be remembered that it was in this address of
Lord Kelvin's that he suggested the possibility of "seed-bearing meteoric
stones moving about through space" inoculating the earth with living
organisms; and if he assumes that the whole population of the globe is to
be traced back to these "moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another
world," it is obvious that he believes in a form of evolution, and one in
which a controlling intelligence is not very obvious, at all events not in
the initial and all-important stage.) Herschel's was a good sneer. It made
me put in the simile about Raphael's Madonna, when describing in the
"Descent of Man" the manner of formation of the wondrous ball-and-socket
ornaments, and I will swear to the truth of this case. (243/3. See
"Descent of Man," II., page 141. Darwin says that no one will attribute
the shading of the "eyes" on the wings of the Argus pheasant to the
"fortuitous concourse of atoms of colouring-matter." He goes on to say
that the development of the ball-and-socket effect by means of Natural
Selection seems at first as incredible as that "one of Raphael's Madonnas
should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint." The
remark of Herschel's, quoted in "Life and Letters," II., page 241, that
the "Origin" illustrates the "law of higgledy-piggledy," is probably a
conversational variant of the Laputan comparison which gave rise to the
passage in the "Descent of Man" (see Letter 130).)

You know the oak-leaved variety of the common honeysuckle; I could not
persuade a lady that this was not the result of the honeysuckle climbing
up a young oak tree! Is this not like the Viola case?

I hope the proof-sheets having been sent here will not inconvenience you.
I have read them with infinite satisfaction, and the whole discussion
strikes me as admirable. I have no books here, and wish much I could see a
plate of Campodea. (244/1. "On the Origin of Insects." By Sir John
Lubbock, Bart. "Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoology)," Volume XI., 1873, pages
422-6. (Read November 2nd, 1871.) In the concluding paragraph the author
writes, "If these views are correct the genus Campodea {a beetle} must be
regarded as a form of remarkable interest, since it is the living
representative of a primaeval type from which not only the Collembola and
Thysanura, but the other great orders of insects, have all derived their
origin." (See also "Brit. Assoc. Report," 1872, page 125—Address by
Sir John Lubbock; and for a figure of Campodea see "Nature," Volume VII.,
1873, page 447.) I never reflected much on the difficulty which you
indicate, and on which you throw so much light. (244/2. The difficulty
alluded to is explained by the first sentence of Lord Avebury's paper.
"The Metamorphoses of this group (Insects) have always seemed to me one of
the greatest difficulties of the Darwinian theory...I feel great
difficulty in conceiving by what natural process an insect with a
suctorial mouth, like that of a gnat or butterfly, could be developed from
a powerfully mandibulate type like the orthoptera, or even from the
neuroptera...A clue to the difficulty may, I think, be found in the
distinction between the developmental and adaptive changes to which I
called the attention of the Society in a previous memoir."

The distinction between developmental and adaptive changes is mentioned,
but not discussed, in the paper "On the Origin of Insects" (loc. cit.,
page 422); in a former paper, "On the Development of Chloeon (Ephemera)
dimidiatum ("Trans. Linn. Soc." XXV. page 477, 1866), this question is
dealt with at length.) I have only a few trifling remarks to make. At page
44 I wish you had enlarged a little on what you have said of the
distinction between developmental and adaptive changes; for I cannot quite
remember the point, and others will perhaps be in the same predicament. I
think I always saw that the larva and the adult might be separately
modified to any extent. Bearing in mind what strange changes of function
parts undergo, with the intermediate state of use (244/3. This slightly
obscure phrase may be paraphrased, "the gradational stages being of
service to the organism."), it seems to me that you speak rather too
boldly on the impossibility of a mandibulate insect being converted into a
sucking insect (244/4. "There are, however, peculiar difficulties in those
cases in which, as among the lepidoptera, the same species is mandibulate
as a larva and suctorial as an embryo" (Lubbock, "Origin of Insects," page
423).); not that I in the least doubt the value of your explanation.

Cirripedes passing through what I have called a pupal state (244/5.
"Hence, the larva in this, its last stage, cannot eat; it may be called a
"locomotive Pupa;" its whole organisation is apparently adapted for the
one great end of finding a proper site for its attachment and final
metamorphosis." ("A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia." By Charles
Darwin. London, Ray Soc., 1851.)) so far as their mouths are concerned,
rather supports what you say at page 52.

At page 40 your remarks on the Argus pheasant (244/6. There is no mention
of the Argus pheasant in the published paper.) (though I have not the
least objection to them) do not seem to me very appropriate as being
related to the mental faculties. If you can spare me these proof-sheets
when done with, I shall be obliged, as I shall be correcting a new edition
of the "Origin" when I return home, though this subject is too large for
me to enter on. I thank you sincerely for the great interest which your
discussion has given me.

LETTER 245. TO J.D. HOOKER.

(245/1. The following letter refers to Mivart's "Genesis of Species.")

Down, September 16th {1871}.

I am preparing a new and cheap edition of the "Origin," and shall
introduce a new chapter on gradation, and on the uses of initial
commencements of useful structures; for this, I observe, has produced the
greatest effect on most persons. Every one of his {Mivart's} cases, as it
seems to me, can be answered in a fairly satisfactory manner. He is very
unfair, and never says what he must have known could be said on my side.
He ignores the effect of use, and what I have said in all my later books
and editions on the direct effects of the conditions of life and so-called
spontaneous variation. I send you by this post a very clever, but
ill-written review from N. America by a friend of Asa Gray, which I have
republished. (245/2. Chauncey Wright in the "North American Review,"
Volume CXIII., reprinted by Darwin and published as a pamphlet (see "Life
and Letters," III., page 145).)

I am glad to hear about Huxley. You never read such strong letters Mivart
wrote to me about respect towards me, begging that I would call on him,
etc., etc.; yet in the "Q. Review" (245/3. See "Quarterly Review," July
1871; also "Life and Letters," III., page 147.) he shows the greatest
scorn and animosity towards me, and with uncommon cleverness says all that
is most disagreeable. He makes me the most arrogant, odious beast that
ever lived. I cannot understand him; I suppose that accursed religious
bigotry is at the root of it. Of course he is quite at liberty to scorn
and hate me, but why take such trouble to express something more than
friendship? It has mortified me a good deal.

LETTER 246. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, October 4th {1871}.

I am quite delighted that you think so highly of Huxley's article. (246/1.
A review of Wallace's "Natural Selection," of Mivart's "Genesis of
Species," and of the "Quarterly Review" article on the "Descent of Man"
(July, 1871), published in the "Contemporary Review" (1871), and in
Huxley's "Collected Essays," II., page 120.) I was afraid of saying all I
thought about it, as nothing is so likely as to make anything appear flat.
I thought of, and quite agreed with, your former saying that Huxley makes
one feel quite infantile in intellect. He always thus acts on me. I
exactly agree with what you say on the several points in the article, and
I piled climax on climax of admiration in my letter to him. I am not so
good a Christian as you think me, for I did enjoy my revenge on Mivart. He
(i.e. Mivart) has just written to me as cool as a cucumber, hoping my
health is better, etc. My head, by the way, plagues me terribly, and I
have it light and rocking half the day. Farewell, dear old friend—my
best of friends.

LETTER 247. TO JOHN FISKE.

(247/1. Mr. Fiske, who is perhaps best known in England as the author of
"Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy," had sent to Mr. Darwin some reports of
the lectures given at Harvard University. The point referred to in the
postscript in Mr. Darwin's letter is explained by the following extract
from Mr. Fiske's work: "I have endeavoured to show that the transition
from animality (or bestiality, stripping the word of its bad connotations)
to humanity must have been mainly determined by the prolongation of
infancy or immaturity which is consequent upon a high development of
intelligence, and which must have necessitated the gradual grouping
together of pithecoid men into more or less definite families." (See
"Descent," I., page 13, on the prolonged infancy of the anthropoid apes.))

Down, November 9th, 1871.

I am greatly obliged to you for having sent me, through my son, your
lectures, and for the very honourable manner in which you allude to my
works. The lectures seem to me to be written with much force, clearness,
and originality. You show also a truly extraordinary amount of knowledge
of all that has been published on the subject. The type in many parts is
so small that, except to young eyes, it is very difficult to read.
Therefore I wish that you would reflect on their separate publication,
though so much has been published on the subject that the public may
possibly have had enough. I hope that this may be your intention, for I do
not think I have ever seen the general argument more forcibly put so as to
convert unbelievers.

It has surprised and pleased me to see that you and others have detected
the falseness of much of Mr. Mivart's reasoning. I wish I had read your
lectures a month or two ago, as I have been preparing a new edition of the
"Origin," in which I answer some special points, and I believe I should
have found your lectures useful; but my MS. is now in the printer's hands,
and I have not strength or time to make any more additions.

P.S.—By an odd coincidence, since the above was written I have
received your very obliging letter of October 23rd. I did notice the point
to which you refer, and will hereafter reflect more over it. I was indeed
on the point of putting in a sentence to somewhat of the same effect in
the new edition of the "Origin," in relation to the query—Why have
not apes advanced in intellect as much as man? but I omitted it on account
of the asserted prolonged infancy of the orang. I am also a little
doubtful about the distinction between gregariousness and sociability.

...When you come to England I shall have much pleasure in making your
acquaintance; but my health is habitually so weak that I have very small
power of conversing with my friends as much as I wish. Let me again thank
you for your letter. To believe that I have at all influenced the minds of
able men is the greatest satisfaction I am capable of receiving.

LETTER 248. TO E. HACKEL. Down, December 27th, 1871.

I thank you for your very interesting letter, which it has given me much
pleasure to receive. I never heard of anything so odd as the Prior in the
Holy Catholic Church believing in our ape-like progenitors. I much hope
that the Jesuits will not dislodge him.

What a wonderfully active man you are! and I rejoice that you have been so
successful in your work on sponges. (248/1. "Die Kalkschwamme: eine
Monographie; 3 volumes: Berlin, 1872. H.J. Clark published a paper "On the
Spongiae Ciliatae as Infusoria flagellata" in the "Mem. Boston Nat. Hist.
Soc." Volume I., Part iii., 1866. See Hackel, op. cit., Volume I., page
24.) Your book with sixty plates will be magnificent. I shall be glad to
learn what you think of Clark's view of sponges being flagellate
infusorians; some observers in this country believe in him. I am glad you
are going fully to consider inheritance, which is an all-important subject
for us. I do not know whether you have ever read my chapter on pangenesis.
My ideas have been almost universally despised, and I suppose that I was
foolish to publish them; yet I must still think that there is some truth
in them. Anyhow, they have aided me much in making me clearly understand
the facts of inheritance.

I have had bad health this last summer, and during two months was able to
do nothing; but I have now almost finished a next edition of the "Origin,"
which Victor Carus is translating. (248/2. See "Life and Letters," III.,
page 49.) There is not much new in it, except one chapter in which I have
answered, I hope satisfactorily, Mr. Mivart's supposed difficulty on the
incipient development of useful structures. I have also given my reasons
for quite disbelieving in great and sudden modifications. I am preparing
an essay on expression in man and the lower animals. It has little
importance, but has interested me. I doubt whether my strength will last
for much more serious work. I hope, however, to publish next summer the
results of my long-continued experiments on the wonderful advantages
derived from crossing. I shall continue to work as long as I can, but it
does not much signify when I stop, as there are so many good men fully as
capable, perhaps more capable, than myself of carrying on our work; and of
these you rank as the first.

With cordial good wishes for your success in all your work and for your
happiness.

LETTER 249. TO E. RAY LANKESTER. Down, April 15th {1872}.

Very many thanks for your kind consideration. The correspondence was in
the "Athenaeum." I got some mathematician to make the calculation, and he
blundered and caused me much shame. I send scrap of proofs from last
edition of the "Origin," with the calculation corrected. What grand work
you did at Naples! I can clearly see that you will some day become our
first star in Natural History.

(249/1. Here follows the extract from the "Origin," sixth edition, page
51: "The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals,
and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of
natural increase. It will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when
thirty years old, and goes on breeding till ninety years old, bringing
forth six young in the interval, and surviving till one hundred years old;
if this be so, after a period of from 740 to 750 years, there would be
nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the first pair."
In the fifth edition, page 75, the passage runs: "If this be so, at the
end of the fifth century, there would be alive fifteen million elephants,
descended from the first pair" (see "Athenaeum," June 5, July 3, 17, 24,
1869).)

LETTER 250. TO C. LYELL. Down, May 10th {1872}.

I received yesterday morning your present of that work to which I, for
one, as well as so many others, owe a debt of gratitude never to be
forgotten. I have read with the greatest interest all the special
additions; and I wish with all my heart that I had the strength and time
to read again every word of the whole book. (250/1. "Principles of
Geology," Edition XII., 1875.) I do not agree with all your criticisms on
Natural Selection, nor do I suppose that you would expect me to do so. We
must be content to differ on several points. I differ must about your
difficulty (page 496) (250/2. In Chapter XLIII. Lyell treats of "Man
considered with reference to his Origin and Geographical Distribution." He
criticizes the view that Natural Selection is capable of bringing about
any amount of change provided a series of minute transitional steps can be
pointed out. "But in reality," he writes, "it cannot be said that we
obtain any insight into the nature of the forces by which a higher grade
of organisation or instinct is evolved out of a lower one by becoming
acquainted with a series of gradational forms or states, each having a
very close affinity with the other."..."It is when there is a change from
an inferior being to one of superior grade, from a humbler organism to one
endowed with new and more exalted attributes, that we are made to feel
that, to explain the difficulty, we must obtain some knowledge of those
laws of variation of which Mr. Darwin grants that we are at present
profoundly ignorant" (op. cit., pages 496-97).) on a higher grade of
organisation being evolved out of lower ones. Is not a very clever man a
grade above a very dull one? and would not the accumulation of a large
number of slight differences of this kind lead to a great difference in
the grade of organisation? And I suppose that you will admit that the
difference in the brain of a clever and dull man is not much more
wonderful than the difference in the length of the nose of any two men. Of
course, there remains the impossibility of explaining at present why one
man has a longer nose than another. But it is foolish of me to trouble you
with these remarks, which have probably often passed through your mind.
The end of this chapter (XLIII.) strikes me as admirably and grandly
written. I wish you joy at having completed your gigantic undertaking, and
remain, my dear Lyell,

Your ever faithful and now very old pupil, CHARLES DARWIN.

LETTER 251. TO J. TRAHERNE MOGGRIDGE. Sevenoaks, October 9th {1872}.

I have just received your note, forwarded to me from my home. I thank you
very truly for your intended present, and I am sure that your book will
interest me greatly. I am delighted that you have taken up the very
difficult and most interesting subject of the habits of insects, on which
Englishmen have done so little. How incomparably more valuable are such
researches than the mere description of a thousand species! I daresay you
have thought of experimenting on the mental powers of the spiders by
fixing their trap-doors open in different ways and at different angles,
and observing what they will do.

We have been here some days, and intend staying some weeks; for I was
quite worn out with work, and cannot be idle at home.

I sincerely hope that your health is not worse.

LETTER 252. TO A. HYATT.

(252/1. The correspondence with Professor Hyatt, of Boston, U.S.,
originated in the reference to his and Professor Cope's theories of
acceleration and retardation, inserted in the sixth edition of the
"Origin," page 149.

Mr. Darwin, on receiving from Mr. Hyatt a copy of his "Fossil Cephalopods
of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Embryology," from the "Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool." Harvard, Volume III., 1872, wrote as follows (252/2. Part of
this letter was published in "Life and Letters," III., page 154.):—)

October 10th, 1872.

I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in having sent me your
valuable memoir on the embryology of the extinct cephalopods. The work
must have been one of immense labour, and the results are extremely
interesting. Permit me to take this opportunity to express my sincere
regret at having committed two grave errors in the last edition of my
"Origin of Species," in my allusion to yours and Professor Cope's views on
acceleration and retardation of development. I had thought that Professor
Cope had preceded you; but I now well remember having formerly read with
lively interest, and marked, a paper by you somewhere in my library, on
fossil cephalopods, with remarks on the subject. (252/3. The paper seems
to be "On the Parallelism between the Different Stages of Life in the
Individual and those in the Entire Group of the Molluscous Order
Tetrabranchiata," from the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist. Mem." I., 1866-69,
page 193. On the back of the paper is written, "I cannot avoid thinking
this paper fanciful.") It seems also that I have quite misrepresented your
joint view; this has vexed me much. I confess that I have never been able
to grasp fully what you wish to show, and I presume that this must be
owing to some dulness on my part...As the case stands, the law of
acceleration and retardation seems to me to be a simple {?} statement of
facts; but the statement, if fully established, would no doubt be an
important step in our knowledge. But I had better say nothing more on the
subject, otherwise I shall perhaps blunder again. I assure you that I
regret much that I have fallen into two such grave errors.

LETTER 253. A. HYATT TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(253/1. Mr. Hyatt replied in a long letter, of which only a small part is
here given.

Cannstadt bei Stuttgart, November 1872.

The letter with which you have honoured me, bearing the date of October
10th, has just reached here after a voyage to America and back.

I have long had it in mind to write you upon the subject of which you
speak, but have been prevented by a very natural feeling of distrust in
the worthiness and truth of the views which I had to present.

There is certainly no occasion to apologise for not having quoted my
paper. The law of acceleration and retardation of development was therein
used to explain the appearance of other phenomena, and might, as it did in
nearly all cases, easily escape notice.

My relations with Prof. Cope are of the most friendly character; and
although fortunate in publishing a few months ahead, I consider that this
gives me no right to claim anything beyond such an amount of participation
in the discovery, if it may be so called, as the thoroughness and worth of
my work entitles me to...

The collections which I have studied, it will be remembered, are fossils
collected without special reference to the very minute subdivisions, such
as the subdivisions of the Lower or Middle Lias as made by the German
authors, especially Quenstedt and Oppel, but pretty well defined for the
larger divisions in which the species are also well defined. The condition
of the collections as regards names, etc., was chaotic, localities alone,
with some few exceptions, accurate. To put this in order they were first
arranged according to their adult characteristics. This proving
unsatisfactory, I determined to test thoroughly the theory of evolution by
following out the developmental history of each species and placing them
within their formations, Middle or Upper Lias, Oolite or so, according to
the extent to which they represented each other's characteristics. Thus an
adult of simple structure being taken as the starting-point which we will
call a, another species which was a in its young stage and became b in the
adult was placed above it in the zoological series. By this process I
presently found that a, then a b and a b c, c representing the adult
stage, were very often found; but that practically after passing these two
or three stages it did not often happen that a species was found which was
a b c in the young and then became d in the adult. But on the other hand I
very frequently found one which, while it was a in the young, skipped the
stages b and c and became d while still quite young. Then sometimes,
though more rarely, a species would be found belonging to the same series,
which would be a in the young and with a very faint and fleeting
resemblance to d at a later stage, pass immediately while still quite
young to the more advanced characteristics represented by e, and hold
these as its specific characteristics until old age destroyed them. This
skipping is the highest exemplification, or rather manifestation, of
acceleration in development. In alluding to the history of diseases and
inheritance of characteristics, you in your "Origin of Species" allude to
the ordinary manifestation of acceleration, when you speak of the tendency
of diseases or characteristics to appear at younger periods in the life of
the child than of its parents. This, according to my observations, is a
law, or rather mode, of development, which is applicable to all
characteristics, and in this way it is possible to explain why the young
of later-occurring animals are like the adult stages of those which
preceded them in time. If I am not mistaken you have intimated something
of this sort also in your first edition, but I have not been able to find
it lately. Of course this is a very normal condition of affairs when a
series can be followed in this way, beginning with species a, then going
through species a b to a b c, then a b d or a c d, and then a d e or
simply a e, as it sometimes comes. Very often the acceleration takes place
in two closely connected series, thus:

a—ab—abd—ae—-ad

in which one series goes on very regularly, while another lateral offshoot
of a becomes d in the adult. This is an actual case which can be plainly
shown with the specimens in hand, and has been verified in the collections
here. Retardation is entirely Prof. Cope's idea, but I think also easily
traceable. It is the opponent of acceleration, so to speak, or the
opposite or negative of that mode of development. Thus series may occur in
which, either in size or characteristics, they return to former
characteristics; but a better discussion of this point you will find in
the little treatise which I send by the same mail as this letter, "On
Reversions among the Ammonites."

LETTER 254. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 4th, 1872.

I thank you sincerely for your most interesting letter. You refer much too
modestly to your own knowledge and judgment, as you are much better fitted
to throw light on your own difficult problems than I am.

It has quite annoyed me that I do not clearly understand yours and Prof.
Cope's views (254/1. Prof. Cope's views may be gathered from his "Origin
of the Fittest" 1887; in this book (page 41) is reprinted his "Origin of
Genera" from the "Proc. Philadelph. Acad. Nat. Soc." 1868, which was
published separately by the author in 1869, and which we believe to be his
first publication on the subject. In the preface to the "Origin of the
Fittest," page vi, he sums up the chief points in the "Origin of Genera"
under seven heads, of which the following are the most important:—"First,
that development of new characters has been accomplished by an
ACCELERATION or RETARDATION in the growth of the parts changed...Second,
that of EXACT PARALLELISM between the adult of one individual or set of
individuals, and a transitional stage of one or more other individuals.
This doctrine is distinct from that of an exact parallelism, which had
already been stated by von Baer." The last point is less definitely stated
by Hyatt in his letter of December 4th, 1872. "I am thus perpetually led
to look upon a series very much as upon an individual, and think that I
have found that in many instances these afford parallel changes." See also
"Lamarck the Founder of Evolution, by A.S. Packard: New York, 1901.) and
the fault lies in some slight degree, I think, with Prof. Cope, who does
not write very clearly. I think I now understand the terms "acceleration"
and "retardation"; but will you grudge the trouble of telling me, by the
aid of the following illustration, whether I do understand rightly? When a
fresh-water decapod crustacean is born with an almost mature structure,
and therefore does not pass, like other decapods, through the Zoea stage,
is this not a case of acceleration? Again, if an imaginary decapod
retained, when adult, many Zoea characters, would this not be a case of
retardation? If these illustrations are correct, I can perceive why I have
been so dull in understanding your views. I looked for something else,
being familiar with such cases, and classing them in my own mind as simply
due to the obliteration of certain larval or embryonic stages. This
obliteration I imagined resulted sometimes entirely from that law of
inheritance to which you allude; but that it in many cases was aided by
Natural Selection, as I inferred from such cases occurring so frequently
in terrestrial and fresh-water members of groups, which retain their
several embryonic stages in the sea, as long as fitting conditions are
present.

Another cause of my misunderstanding was the assumption that in your
series

a—ab—abd—ae,————ad

the differences between the successive species, expressed by the terminal
letter, was due to acceleration: now, if I understand rightly, this is not
the case; and such characters must have been independently acquired by
some means.

The two newest and most interesting points in your letter (and in, as far
as I think, your former paper) seem to me to be about senile
characteristics in one species appearing in succeeding species during
maturity; and secondly about certain degraded characters appearing in the
last species of a series. You ask for my opinion: I can only send the
conjectured impressions which have occurred to me and which are not worth
writing. (It ought to be known whether the senile character appears before
or after the period of active reproduction.) I should be inclined to
attribute the character in both your cases to the laws of growth and
descent, secondarily to Natural Selection. It has been an error on my
part, and a misfortune to me, that I did not largely discuss what I mean
by laws of growth at an early period in some of my books. I have said
something on this head in two new chapters in the last edition of the
"Origin." I should be happy to send you a copy of this edition, if you do
not possess it and care to have it. A man in extreme old age differs much
from a young man, and I presume every one would account for this by
failing powers of growth. On the other hand the skulls of some mammals go
on altering during maturity into advancing years; as do the horns of the
stag, the tail-feathers of some birds, the size of fishes etc.; and all
such differences I should attribute simply to the laws of growth, as long
as full vigour was retained. Endless other changes of structure in
successive species may, I believe, be accounted for by various complex
laws of growth. Now, any change of character thus induced with advancing
years in the individual might easily be inherited at an earlier age than
that at which it first supervened, and thus become characteristic of the
mature species; or again, such changes would be apt to follow from
variation, independently of inheritance, under proper conditions.
Therefore I should expect that characters of this kind would often appear
in later-formed species without the aid of Natural Selection, or with its
aid if the characters were of any advantage. The longer I live, the more I
become convinced how ignorant we are of the extent to which all sorts of
structures are serviceable to each species. But that characters
supervening during maturity in one species should appear so regularly, as
you state to be the case, in succeeding species, seems to me very
surprising and inexplicable.

With respect to degradation in species towards the close of a series, I
have nothing to say, except that before I arrived at the end of your
letter, it occurred to me that the earlier and simpler ammonites must have
been well adapted to their conditions, and that when the species were
verging towards extinction (owing probably to the presence of some more
successful competitors) they would naturally become re-adapted to simpler
conditions. Before I had read your final remarks I thought also that
unfavourable conditions might cause, through the law of growth, aided
perhaps by reversion, degradation of character. No doubt many new laws
remain to be discovered. Permit me to add that I have never been so
foolish as to imagine that I have succeeded in doing more than to lay down
some of the broad outlines of the origin of species.

After long reflection I cannot avoid the conviction that no innate
tendency to progressive development exists, as is now held by so many able
naturalists, and perhaps by yourself. It is curious how seldom writers
define what they mean by progressive development; but this is a point
which I have briefly discussed in the "Origin." I earnestly hope that you
may visit Hilgendorf's famous deposit. Have you seen Weismann's pamphlet
"Einfluss der Isolirung," Leipzig, 1872? He makes splendid use of
Hilgendorf's admirable observations. (254/2. Hilgendorf, "Monatsb. K.
Akad." Berlin, 1866. For a semi-popular account of Hilgendorf's and
Hyatt's work on this subject, see Romanes' "Darwin and after Darwin," I.,
page 201.) I have no strength to spare, being much out of health;
otherwise I would have endeavoured to have made this letter better worth
sending. I most sincerely wish you success in your valuable and difficult
researches.

I have received, and thank you, for your three pamphlets. As far as I can
judge, your views seem very probable; but what a fearfully intricate
subject is this of the succession of ammonites. (254/3. See various papers
in the publications of the "Boston Soc. Nat. Hist." and in the "Bulletin
of the Harvard Museum of Comp. Zoology.")

The quickness and earnestness of your reply to my letter gives me the
greatest encouragement, and I am much delighted at the unexpected interest
which your questions and comments display. What you say about Prof. Cope's
style has been often before said to me, and I have remarked in his
writings an unsatisfactory treatment of our common theory. This, I think,
perhaps is largely due to the complete absorption of his mind in the
contemplation of his subject: this seems to lead him to be careless about
the methods in which it may be best explained. He has, however, a more
extended knowledge than I have, and has in many ways a more powerful grasp
of the subject, and for that very reason, perhaps, is liable to run into
extremes. You ask about the skipping of the Zoea stage in fresh-water
decapods: is this an illustration of acceleration? It most assuredly is,
if acceleration means anything at all. Again, another and more general
illustration would be, if, among the marine decapods, a series could be
formed in which the Zoea stage became less and less important in the
development, and was relegated to younger and younger stages of the
development, and finally disappeared in those to which you refer. This is
the usual way in which the accelerated mode of development manifests
itself; though near the lowest or earliest occurring species it is also to
be looked for. Perhaps this to which you allude is an illustration
somewhat similar to the one which I have spoken of in my series,

a—ab—abc—ae————ad,

which like "a d" comes from the earliest of a series, though I should
think from the entire skipping of the Zoea stage that it must be, like "a
e," the result of a long line of ancestors. In fact, the essential point
of our theory is, that characteristics are ever inherited by the young at
earlier periods than they are assumed in due course of growth by the
parents, and that this must eventually lead to the extinction or skipping
of these characteristics altogether...

Such considerations as these and the fact that near the heads of series or
near the latest members of series, and not at the beginning, were usually
found the accelerated types, which skipped lower characteristics and
developed very suddenly to a higher and more complex standpoint in
structure, led both Cope and {myself} into what may be a great error. I
see that it has led you at least into the difficulty of which you very
rightly complain, and which, I am sorry to see, has cost you some of your
valuable time. We presumed that because characteristics were perpetually
inherited at earlier stages, that this very concentration of the developed
characteristics made room for the production of differences in the adult
descendants of any given pair. Further, that in the room thus made other
different characteristics must be produced, and that these would
necessarily appear earlier in proportion as the species was more or less
accelerated, and be greater or less in the same proportion. Finally, that
in the most accelerated, such as "a c" or "a d," the difference would be
so great as to constitute distinct genera. Cope and I have differed very
much, while he acknowledged the action of the accumulated mode of
development only when generic characteristics or greater differences were
produced, I saw the same mode of development to be applicable in all cases
and to all characteristics, even to diseases. So far the facts bore us
out, but when we assumed that the adult differences were the result of the
accelerated mode of development, we were perhaps upon rather insecure
ground. It is evidently this assumption which has led you to misunderstand
the theory. Cope founded his belief, that the adult characteristics were
also the result of acceleration, if I rightly remember it, mainly upon the
class of facts spoken of above in man where a sudden change into two
organs may produce entirely new and unexpected differences in the whole
organisation, and upon the changes which acceleration appeared to produce
in the development of each succeeding species. Your difficulty in
understanding the theory and the observations you have made show me at
once what my own difficulties have been, but of these I will not speak at
present, as my letter is spinning itself out to a fearful length.

(255/1. After speaking of Cope's comparison of acceleration and
retardation in evolution to the force of gravity in physical matters Mr.
Hyatt goes on:—)

Now it {acceleration} seems to me to explain less and less the origin of
adult progressive characteristics or simply differences, and perhaps now I
shall get on faster with my work.

LETTER 256. TO A. HYATT. Down, December 14th {1872}.

(256/1. In reply to the above letter (255) from Mr. Hyatt.)

Notwithstanding the kind consideration shown in your last sentence, I must
thank you for your interesting and clearly expressed letter. I have
directed my publisher to send you a copy of the last edition of the
"Origin," and you can, if you like, paste in the "From the Author" on next
page. In relation to yours and Professor Cope's view on "acceleration"
causing a development of new characters, it would, I think, be well if you
were to compare the decapods which pass and do not pass through the Zoea
stage, and the one group which does (according to Fritz Muller) pass
through to the still earlier Nauplius stages, and see if they present any
marked differences. You will, I believe, find that this is not the case. I
wish it were, for I have often been perplexed at the omission of embryonic
stages as well as the acquirement of peculiar stages appearing to produce
no special result in the mature form.

(256/2. The remainder of this letter is missing, and the whole of the last
sentence is somewhat uncertainly deciphered. (Note by Mr. Hyatt.))

LETTER 257. TO A. HYATT. Down, February 13th, 1877.

I thank you for your very kind, long, and interesting letter. The case is
so wonderful and difficult that I dare not express any opinion on it. Of
course, I regret that Hilgendorf has been proved to be so greatly in error
(257/1. This refers to a controversy with Sandberger, who had attacked
Hilgendorf in the "Verh. der phys.-med. Ges. zu Wurzburg," Bd. V., and in
the "Jahrb. der Malakol. Ges." Bd. I., to which Hilgendorf replied in the
"Zeitschr. d. Deutschen geolog. Ges." Jahrb. 1877. Hyatt's name occurs in
Hilgendorf's pages, but we find no reference to any paper of this date;
his well-known paper is in the "Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist." 1880. In a letter
to Darwin (May 23rd, 1881) Hyatt regrets that he had no opportunity of a
third visit to Steinheim, and goes on: "I should then have done greater
justice to Hilgendorf, for whom I have such a high respect."), but it is
some selfish comfort to me that I always felt so much misgiving that I
never quoted his paper. (257/2. In the fifth edition of the "Origin" (page
362), however, Darwin speaks of the graduated forms of Planorbis
multiformis, described by Hilgendorf from certain beds in Switzerland, by
which we presume he meant the Steinheim beds in Wurtemberg.) The
variability of these shells is quite astonishing, and seems to exceed that
of Rubus or Hieracium amongst plants. The result which surprises me most
is that the same form should be developed from various and different
progenitors. This seems to show how potent are the conditions of life,
irrespectively of the variations being in any way beneficial.

The production of a species out of a chaos of varying forms reminds me of
Nageli's conclusion, as deduced from the study of Hieracium, that this is
the common mode in which species arise. But I still continue to doubt much
on this head, and cling to the belief expressed in the first edition of
the "Origin," that protean or polymorphic species are those which are now
varying in such a manner that the variations are neither advantageous nor
disadvantageous. I am glad to hear of the Brunswick deposit, as I feel
sure that the careful study of such cases is highly important. I hope that
the Smithsonian Institution will publish your memoir.

LETTER 258. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, January 18th {1873}.

It was very good of you to give up so much of your time to write to me
your last interesting letter. The evidence seems good about the tameness
of the alpine butterflies, and the fact seems to me very surprising, for
each butterfly can hardly have acquired its experience during its own
short life. Will you be so good as to thank M. Humbert for his note, which
I have been glad to read. I formerly received from a man, not a
naturalist, staying at Cannes a similar account, but doubted about
believing it. The case, however, does not answer my query—viz.,
whether butterflies are attracted by bright colours, independently of the
supposed presence of nectar?

I must own that I have great difficulty in believing that any temporary
condition of the parents can affect the offspring. If it last long enough
to affect the health or structure of the parents, I can quite believe the
offspring would be modified. But how mysterious a subject is that of
generation! Although my hypothesis of pangenesis has been reviled on all
sides, yet I must still look at generation under this point of view; and
it makes me very averse to believe in an emotion having any effect on the
offspring. Allow me to add one word about blushing and shyness: I intended
only to say the habit was primordially acquired by attention to the face,
and not that each shy man now attended to his personal appearance.

LETTER 259. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, June 28th, 1873.

I write a line to wish you good-bye, as I hear you are off on Wednesday,
and to thank you for the Dionoea, but I cannot make the little creature
grow well. I have this day read Bentham's last address, and must express
my admiration of it. (259/1. Presidential address to the Linnean Society,
read May 24th, 1873.) Perhaps I ought not to do so, as he fairly crushes
me with honour.

I am delighted to see how exactly I agree with him on affinities, and
especially on extinct forms as illustrated by his flat-topped tree.
(259/2. See page 15 of separate copy: "We should then have the present
races represented by the countless branchlets forming the flat-topped
summit" of a genealogical tree, in which "all we can do is to map out the
summit as it were from a bird's-eye view, and under each cluster, or
cluster of clusters, to place as the common trunk an imaginary type of a
genus, order, or class according to the depth to which we would go.") My
recent work leads me to differ from him on one point—viz., on the
separation of the sexes. (259/3. On the question of sexuality, see page 10
of Bentham's address. On the back of Mr. Darwin's copy he has written: "As
long as lowest organisms free—sexes separated: as soon as they
become attached, to prevent sterility sexes united—reseparated as
means of fertilisation, adapted {?} for distant {?} organisms,—in
the case of animals by their senses and voluntary movements,—with
plants the aid of insects and wind, the latter always existed, and long
retained." The two words marked {?} are doubtful. The introduction of
freedom or attachedness, as a factor in the problem also occurs in "Cross
and Self-fertilisation," page 462. I strongly suspect that sexes were
primordially in distinct individuals; then became commonly united in the
same individual, and then in a host of animals and some few plants became
again separated. Do ask Bentham to send a copy of his address to "Dr. H.
Muller, Lippstadt, Prussia," as I am sure it will please him GREATLY.

...When in France write me a line and tell me how you get on, and how
Huxley is; but do not do so if you feel idle, and writing bothers you.

LETTER 260. TO R. MELDOLA.

(260/1. This letter, with others from Darwin to Meldola, is published in
"Charles Darwin and the Theory of Natural Selection," by E.B. Poulton,
pages 199 et seq., London, 1896.)

Southampton, August 13th, 1873.

I am much obliged for your present, which no doubt I shall find at Down on
my return home. I am sorry to say that I cannot answer your question; nor
do I believe that you could find it anywhere even approximately answered.
It is very difficult or impossible to define what is meant by a large
variation. Such graduate into monstrosities or generally injurious
variations. I do not myself believe that these are often or ever taken
advantage of under nature. It is a common occurrence that abrupt and
considerable variations are transmitted in an unaltered state, or not at
all transmitted, to the offspring, or to some of them. So it is with
tailless or hornless animals, and with sudden and great changes of colour
in flowers. I wish I could have given you any answer.

LETTER 261. TO E.S. MORSE. {Undated.}

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your kindness in sending me
your essay on the Brachiopoda. (261/1. "The Brachiopoda, a Division of
Annelida," "Amer. Assoc. Proc." Volume XIX., page 272, 1870, and "Annals
and Mag. Nat. Hist." Volume VI., page 267, 1870.) I have just read it with
the greatest interest, and you seem to me (though I am not a competent
judge) to make out with remarkable clearness an extremely strong case.
What a wonderful change it is to an old naturalist to have to look at
these "shells" as "worms"; but, as you truly say, as far as external
appearance is concerned, the case is not more wonderful than that of
cirripedes. I have also been particularly interested by your remarks on
the Geological Record, and on the lower and older forms in each great
class not having been probably protected by calcareous valves or a shell.

P.S.—Your woodcut of Lingula is most skilfully introduced to compel
one to see its likeness to an annelid.

LETTER 262. TO H. SPENCER.

(262/1. Mr. Spencer's book "The Study of Sociology," 1873, was published
in the "Contemporary Review" in instalments between May 1872 and October
1873.)

October 31st {1873}.

I am glad to receive to-day an advertisement of your book. I have been
wonderfully interested by the articles in the "Contemporary." Those were
splendid hits about the Prince of Wales and Gladstone. (262/2. See "The
Study of Sociology," page 392. Mr. Gladstone, in protest against some
words of Mr. Spencer, had said that the appearance of great men "in great
crises of human history" were events so striking "that men would be liable
to term them providential in a pre-scientific age." On this Mr. Spencer
remarks that "in common with the ancient Greek Mr. Gladstone regards as
irreligious any explanation of Nature which dispenses with immediate
Divine superintendence." And as an instance of the partnership "between
the ideas of natural causation and of providential interference," he
instances a case where a prince "gained popularity by outliving certain
abnormal changes in his blood," and where "on the occasion of his recovery
providential aid and natural causation were unitedly recognised by a
thanksgiving to God and a baronetcy to the doctor." The passage on Toryism
is on page 395, where Mr. Spencer, with his accustomed tolerance, writes:
"The desirable thing is that a growth of ideas and feelings tending to
produce modification shall be joined with a continuance of ideas and
feelings tending to preserve stability." And from this point of view he
concludes it to be very desirable that "one in Mr. Gladstone's position
should think as he does." The matter is further discussed in the notes to
Chapter XVI., page 423.) I never before read a good defence of Toryism. In
one place (but I cannot for the life of me recollect where or what it
exactly was) I thought that you would have profited by my principle (i.e.
if you do not reject it) given in my "Descent of Man," that new characters
which appear late in life are those which are transmitted to the same sex
alone. I have advanced some pretty strong evidence, and the principle is
of great importance in relation to secondary sexual likenesses. (262/3.
This refers to Mr. Spencer's discussion of the evolution of the mental
traits characteristic of women. At page 377 he points out the importance
of the limitation of heredity by sex in this relation. A striking
generalisation on this question is given in the "Descent of Man," Edition
I., Volume II., page 285: that when the adult male differs from the adult
female, he differs in the same way from the young of both sexes. Can this
law be applied in the case in which the adult female possesses characters
not possessed by the male: for instance, the high degree of intuitive
power of reading the mental states of others and of concealing her own—characters
which Mr. Spencer shows to be accounted for by the relations between the
husband and wife in a state of savagery. If so, the man should resemble
"the young of both sexes" in the absence of these special qualities. This
seems to be the case with some masculine characteristics, and childishness
of man is not without recognition among women: for instance, by Dolly
Winthrop in "Silas Marner," who is content with bread for herself, but
bakes cake for children and men, whose "stomichs are made so comical, they
want a change—they do, I know, God help 'em.") I have applied it to
man and woman, and possibly it was here that I thought that you would have
profited by the doctrine. I fear that this note will be almost illegible,
but I am very tired.

LETTER 263. G.J. ROMANES TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(263/1. This is, we believe, the first letter addressed by the late Mr.
Romanes to Mr. Darwin. It was put away with another on the same subject,
and inscribed "Romanes on Abortion, with my answer (very important)." Mr.
Darwin's answer given below is printed from his rough draft, which is in
places barely decipherable. On the subject of these letters consult
Romanes, "Darwin and after Darwin," Volume II., page 99, 1895.)

Dunskaith, Parkhill, Ross-shire, July 10th, 1874.

Knowing that you do not dissuade the more attentive of your readers from
communicating directly to yourself any ideas they may have upon subjects
connected with your writings, I take the liberty of sending the enclosed
copy of a letter, which I have recently addressed to Mr. Herbert Spencer.
You will perceive that the subject dealt with is the same as that to which
a letter of mine in last week's "Nature" {July 2nd, page 164} refers—viz.,
"Disuse as a Reducing Cause in Species." In submitting this more detailed
exposition of my views to your consideration, I should like to state again
what I stated in "Nature" some weeks ago, viz., that in propounding the
cessation of selection as a reducing cause, I do not suppose that I am
suggesting anything which has not occurred to you already. Not only is
this principle embodied in the theory set forth in the article on
Rudimentary Organs ("Nature," Volume IX.); but it is more than once hinted
at in the "Origin," in the passages where rudimentary organs are said to
be more variable than others, because no longer under the restraining
influence of Natural Selection. And still more distinctly is this
principle recognised in page 120.

Thus, in sending you the enclosed letter, I do not imagine that I am
bringing any novel suggestions under your notice. As I see that you have
already applied the principle in question to the case of artificially-bred
structures, I cannot but infer that you have pondered it in connection
with naturally-bred structures. What objection, however, you can have seen
to this principle in this latter connection, I am unable to divine; and so
I think the best course for me to pursue is the one I adopt—viz., to
send you my considerations in full.

In the absence of express information, the most natural inference is that
the reason you refuse to entertain the principle in question, is because
you show the backward tendency of indiscriminate variability {to be}
inadequate to contend with the conservative tendency of long inheritance.
The converse of this is expressed in the words "That the struggle between
Natural Selection on the one hand, and the tendency to reversion and
variability on the other hand, will in the course of time cease; and that
the most abnormally developed organs may be made constant, I see no reason
to doubt" ("Origin," page 121). Certainly not, if, as I doubt not, the
word "constant" is intended to bear a relative signification; but to say
that constancy can ever become absolute—i.e., that any term of
inheritance could secure to an organ a total immunity from the smallest
amount of spontaneous variability—to say this would be
unwarrantable. Suppose, for instance, that for some reason or other a
further increase in the size of a bat's wing should now suddenly become
highly beneficial to that animal: we can scarcely suppose that variations
would not be forthcoming for Natural Selection to seize upon (unless the
limit of possible size has now been reached, which is an altogether
distinct matter). And if we suppose that minute variations on the side of
increase are thus even now occasionally taking place, much more is it
probable that similar variations on the side of decrease are now taking
place—i.e., that if the conservative influence of Natural Selection
were removed for a long period of time, more variations would ensue below
the present size of bat's wings, than above it. To this it may be added,
that when the influence of "speedy selection" is removed, it seems in
itself highly probable that the structure would, for this reason, become
more variable, for the only reason why it ever ceased to be variable
(i.e., after attaining its maximum size), was because of the influence of
selection constantly destroying those individuals in which a tendency to
vary occurred. When, therefore, this force antagonistic to variability was
removed, it seems highly probable that the latter principle would again
begin to assert itself, and this in a cumulative manner. Those individuals
in which a tendency to vary occurred being no longer cut off, they would
have as good a chance of leaving progeny to inherit their fluctuating
disposition as would their more inflexible companions.

LETTER 264. TO G.J. ROMANES. July 16th, 1874.

I am much obliged for your kind and long communication, which I have read
with great interest, as well as your articles in "Nature." The subject
seems to me as important and interesting as it is difficult. I am much out
of health, and working very hard on a very different subject, so thus I
cannot give your remarks the attention which they deserve. I will,
however, keep your letter for some later time, when I may again take up
the subject. Your letter makes it clearer to me than it ever was before,
how a part or organ which has already begun from any cause to decrease,
will go on decreasing through so-called spontaneous variability, with
intercrossing; for under such circumstances it is very unlikely that there
should be variation in the direction of increase beyond the average size,
and no reason why there should not be variations of decrease. I think this
expresses your view. I had intended this summer subjecting plants to
{illegible} conditions, and observing the effects on variation; but the
work would be very laborious, yet I am inclined to think it will be
hereafter worth the labour.

LETTER 265. TO T. MEEHAN. Down, October 9th, 1874.

I am glad that you are attending to the colours of dioecious flowers; but
it is well to remember that their colours may be as unimportant to them as
those of a gall, or, indeed, as the colour of an amethyst or ruby is to
these gems. Some thirty years ago I began to investigate the little purple
flowers in the centre of the umbels of the carrot. I suppose my memory is
wrong, but it tells me that these flowers are female, and I think that I
once got a seed from one of them; but my memory may be quite wrong. I hope
that you will continue your interesting researches.

LETTER 266. TO G. JAGER. Down, February 3rd, 1875.

I received this morning a copy of your work "Contra Wigand," either from
yourself or from your publisher, and I am greatly obliged for it. (266/1.
Jager's "In Sachen Darwins insbesondere contra Wigand" (Stuttgart, 1874)
is directed against A. Wigand's "Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung
Newtons und Cuviers" (Brunswick, 1874).) I had, however, before bought a
copy, and have sent the new one to our best library, that of the Royal
Society. As I am a very poor german scholar, I have as yet read only about
forty pages; but these have interested me in the highest degree. Your
remarks on fixed and variable species deserve the greatest attention; but
I am not at present quite convinced that there are such independent of the
conditions to which they are subjected. I think you have done great
service to the principle of evolution, which we both support, by
publishing this work. I am the more glad to read it as I had not time to
read Wigand's great and tedious volume.

LETTER 267. TO CHAUNCEY WRIGHT. Down, March 13th, 1875.

I write to-day so that there shall be no delay this time in thanking you
for your interesting and long letter received this morning. I am sure that
you will excuse brevity when I tell you that I am half-killing myself in
trying to get a book ready for the press. (267/1. The MS. of
"Insectivorous Plants" was got ready for press in March, 1875. Darwin
seems to have been more than usually oppressed by the work.) I quite agree
with what you say about advantages of various degrees of importance being
co-selected (267/2. Mr. Chauncey Wright wrote (February 24th, 1875): "The
inquiry as to which of several real uses is the one through which Natural
Selection has acted...has for several years seemed to me a somewhat less
important question than it seemed formerly, and still appears to most
thinkers on the subject...The uses of the rattling of the rattlesnake as a
protection by warning its enemies and as a sexual call are not rival uses;
neither are the high-reaching and the far-seeing uses of the giraffe's
neck 'rivals.'"), and aided by the effects of use, etc. The subject seems
to me well worth further development. I do not think I have anywhere
noticed the use of the eyebrows, but have long known that they protected
the eyes from sweat. During the voyage of the "Beagle" one of the men
ascended a lofty hill during a very hot day. He had small eyebrows, and
his eyes became fearfully inflamed from the sweat running into them. The
Portuguese inhabitants were familiar with this evil. I think you allude to
the transverse furrows on the forehead as a protection against sweat; but
remember that these incessantly appear on the foreheads of baboons.

P.S.—I have been greatly pleased by the notices in the "Nation."

LETTER 268. TO A. WEISMANN. Down, May 1st, 1875.

I did not receive your essay for some days after your very kind letter,
and I read german so slowly that I have only just finished it. (268/1.
"Studien zur Descendenz-Theorie" I. "Ueber den Saison-Dimorphismus," 1875.
The fact was previously known that two forms of the genus Vanessa which
had been considered to be distinct species are only SEASONAL forms of the
same species—one appearing in spring, the other in summer. This
remarkable relationship forms the subject of the essay.) Your work has
interested me greatly, and your conclusions seem well established. I have
long felt much curiosity about season-dimorphism, but never could form any
theory on the subject. Undoubtedly your view is very important, as bearing
on the general question of variability. When I wrote the "Origin" I could
not find any facts which proved the direct action of climate and other
external conditions. I long ago thought that the time would soon come when
the causes of variation would be fully discussed, and no one has done so
much as you in this important subject. The recent evidence of the
difference between birds of the same species in the N. and S. United
States well shows the power of climate. The two sexes of some few birds
are there differently modified by climate, and I have introduced this fact
in the last edition of my "Descent of Man." (268/2. "Descent of Man,"
Edition II. (in one volume), page 423. Allen showed that many species of
birds are more strongly coloured in the south of the United States, and
that sometimes one sex is more affected than the other. It is this last
point that bears on Weismann's remarks (loc. cit., pages 44, 45) on Pieris
napi. The males of the alpine-boreal form bryoniae hardly differ from
those of the German form (var. vernalis), while the females are strikingly
different. Thus the character of secondary sexual differences is
determined by climate.) I am, therefore, fully prepared to admit the
justness of your criticism on sexual selection of lepidoptera; but
considering the display of their beauty, I am not yet inclined to think
that I am altogether in error.

What you say about reversion (268/3. For instance, the fact that reversion
to the primary winter-form may be produced by the disturbing effect of
high temperature (page 7).) being excited by various causes, agrees with
what I concluded with respect to the remarkable effects of crossing two
breeds: namely, that anything which disturbs the constitution leads to
reversion, or, as I put the case under my hypothesis of pangenesis, gives
a good chance of latent gemmules developing. Your essay, in my opinion, is
an admirable one, and I thank you for the interest which it has afforded
me.

P.S. I find that there are several points, which I have forgotten. Mr.
Jenner Weir has not published anything more about caterpillars, but I have
written to him, asking him whether he has tried any more experiments, and
will keep back this letter till I receive his answer. Mr. Riley of the
United States supports Mr. Weir, and you will find reference to him and
other papers at page 426 of the new and much-corrected edition of my
"Descent of Man." As I have a duplicate copy of Volume I. (I believe
Volume II. is not yet published in german) I send it to you by this post.
Mr. Belt, in his travels in Nicaragua, gives several striking cases of
conspicuously coloured animals (but not caterpillars) which are
distasteful to birds of prey: he is an excellent observer, and his book,
"The Naturalist in Nicaragua," very interesting.

I am very much obliged for your photograph, which I am particularly glad
to possess, and I send mine in return.

I see you allude to Hilgendorf's statements, which I was sorry to see
disputed by some good German observer. Mr. Hyatt, an excellent
palaeontologist of the United States, visited the place, and likewise
assured me that Hilgendorf was quite mistaken. (268/4. See Letters 252-7.)

I am grieved to hear that your eyesight still continues bad, but anyhow it
has forced your excellent work in your last essay.

May 4th. Here is what Mr. Weir says:—

"In reply to your inquiry of Saturday, I regret that I have little to add
to my two communications to the 'Entomological Society Transactions.'

"I repeated the experiments with gaudy caterpillars for years, and always
with the same results: not on a single occasion did I find richly
coloured, conspicuous larvae eaten by birds. It was more remarkable to
observe that the birds paid not the slightest attention to gaudy
caterpillars, not even when in motion,—the experiments so thoroughly
satisfied my mind that I have now given up making them."

LETTER 269. TO LAWSON TAIT.

(269/1. The late Mr. Lawson Tait wrote to Mr. Darwin (June 2nd, 1875): "I
am watching a lot of my mice from whom I removed the tails at birth, and I
am coming to the conclusion that the essential use of the tail there is as
a recording organ—that is, they record in their memories the corners
they turn and the height of the holes they pass through by touching them
with their tails." Mr. Darwin was interested in the idea because "some
German sneered at Natural Selection and instanced the tails of mice.")

June 11th, 1875.

It has just occurred to me to look at the "Origin of Species" (Edition
VI., page 170), and it is certain that Bronn, in the appended chapter to
his translation of my book into german, did advance ears and tail of
various species of mice as a difficulty opposed to Natural Selection. I
answered with respect to ears by alluding to Schobl's curious paper (I
forget when published) (269/2. J. Schobl, "Das aussere Ohr der Mause als
wichtiges Tastorgan." "Archiv. Mik. Anat." VII., 1871, page 260.) on the
hairs of the ears being sensitive and provided with nerves. I presume he
made fine sections: if you are accustomed to such histological work, would
it not be worth while to examine hairs of tail of mice? At page 189 I
quote Henslow (confirmed by Gunther) on Mus messorius (and other species?)
using tail as prehensile organ.

Dr. Kane in his account of the second Grinnell Expedition says that the
Esquimaux in severe weather carry a fox-tail tied to the neck, which they
use as a respirator by holding the tip of the tail between their teeth.
(269/3. The fact is stated in Volume II., page 24, of E.K. Kane's "Arctic
Explorations: The Second Grinnell Expedition in Search of Sir John
Franklin." Philadelphia, 1856.)

He says also that he found a frozen fox curled up with his nose buried in
his tail.

N.B. It is just possible that the latter fact is stated by M'Clintock, not
by Dr. Kane.

(269/4. The final passage is a postscript by Mr. W.E. Darwin bearing on
Mr. Lawson Tait's idea of the respirator function of the fox's tail.)

LETTER 270. TO G.J. ROMANES. Down, July 12th, 1875.

I am correcting a second edition of "Variation under Domestication," and
find that I must do it pretty fully. Therefore I give a short abstract of
potato graft-hybrids, and I want to know whether I did not send you a
reference about beet. Did you look to this, and can you tell me anything
about it?

I hope with all my heart that you are getting on pretty well with your
experiments.

I have been led to think a good deal on the subject, and am convinced of
its high importance, though it will take years of hammering before
physiologists will admit that the sexual organs only collect the
generative elements.

The edition will be published in November, and then you will see all that
I have collected, but I believe that you gave all the more important
cases. The case of vine in "Gardeners' Chronicle," which I sent you, I
think may only be a bud-variation not due to grafting. I have heard
indirectly of your splendid success with nerves of medusae. We have been
at Abinger Hall for a month for rest, which I much required, and I saw
there the cut-leaved vine which seems splendid for graft hybridism.

LETTER 271. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, November 7th, 1875.

I have read your essay with much curiosity and interest, but you probably
have no idea how excessively difficult it is to understand. (271/1. "A
Theory of Heredity" ("Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875). In
this paper Mr. Galton admits that the hypothesis of organic units "must
lie at the foundation of the science of heredity," and proceeds to show in
what respect his conception differs from the hypothesis of pangenesis. The
copy of Mr. Galton's paper, which Darwin numbered in correspondence with
the criticisms in his letter, is not available, and we are therefore only
able to guess at some of the points referred to.) I cannot fully grasp,
only here and there conjecture, what are the points on which we differ. I
daresay this is chiefly due to muddy-headedness on my part, but I do not
think wholly so. Your many terms, not defined, "developed germs,"
"fertile," and "sterile germs" (the word "germ" itself from association
misleading to me) "stirp," "sept," "residue," etc., etc., quite confounded
me. If I ask myself how you derive, and where you place the innumerable
gemmules contained within the spermatozoa formed by a male animal during
its whole life, I cannot answer myself. Unless you can make several parts
clearer I believe (though I hope I am altogether wrong) that only a few
will endeavour or succeed in fathoming your meaning. I have marked a few
passages with numbers, and here make a few remarks and express my opinion,
as you desire it, not that I suppose it will be of any use to you.

1. If this implies that many parts are not modified by use and disuse
during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every year
I come to attribute more and more to such agency. (271/2. This seems to
refer to page 329 of Mr. Galton's paper. The passage must have been
hastily read, and has been quite misunderstood. Mr. Galton has never
expressed the view attributed to him.)

2. This seems rather bold, as sexuality has not been detected in some of
the lowest forms, though I daresay it may hereafter be. (271/3. Mr.
Galton, op. cit., pages 332-3: "There are not of a necessity two sexes,
because swarms of creatures of the simplest organisations mainly multiply
by some process of self-division.")

3. If gemmules (to use my own term) were often deficient in buds, I cannot
but think that bud-variations would be commoner than they are in a state
of nature; nor does it seem that bud-variations often exhibit deficiencies
which might be accounted for by the absence of the proper gemmules. I take
a very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality. (271/4. Mr.
Galton's idea is that in a bud or other asexually produced part, the germs
(i.e. gemmules) may not be completely representative of the whole
organism, and if reproduction is continued asexually "at each successive
stage there is always a chance of some one or more of the various species
of germs... dying out" (page 333). Mr. Galton supposes, in sexual
reproduction, where two parents contribute germs to the embryo the chance
of deficiency of any of the necessary germs is greatly diminished.
Darwin's "very different view of the meaning or cause of sexuality" is no
doubt that given in "Cross and Self Fertilisation"—i.e., that
sexuality is equivalent to changed conditions, that the parents are not
representative of different sexes, but of different conditions of life.)

4. I have ordered "Fraser's Magazine" (271/5. "The History of Twins," by
F. Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," November, 1875, republished with additions
in the "Journal of the Anthropological Institute," 1875. Mr. Galton
explains the striking dissimilarity of twins which is sometimes met with
by supposing that the offspring in this case divide the available gemmules
between them in such a way that each is the complement of the other. Thus,
to put the case in an exaggerated way, similar twins would each have half
the gemmules A, B, C,...Z., etc, whereas, in the case of dissimilar twins,
one would have all the gemmules A, B, C, D,...M, and the other would have
N...Z.), and am curious to learn how twins from a single ovum are
distinguished from twins from two ova. Nothing seems to me more curious
than the similarity and dissimilarity of twins.

5. Awfully difficult to understand.

6. I have given almost the same notion.

7. I hope that all this will be altered. I have received new and
additional cases, so that I have now not a shadow of doubt.

8. Such cases can hardly be spoken of as very rare, as you would say if
you had received half the number of cases I have.

(271/6. We are unable to determine to what paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 refer.)

I am very sorry to differ so much from you, but I have thought that you
would desire my open opinion. Frank is away, otherwise he should have
copied my scrawl.

I have got a good stock of pods of sweet peas, but the autumn has been
frightfully bad; perhaps we may still get a few more to ripen.

LETTER 272. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 12th {1875}.

Many thanks for your "Biology," which I have read. (272/1. "A Course of
Practical Instruction in Elementary Biology," by T.H. Huxley and H.N.
Martin, 1875. For an account of the book see "Life and Letters of T.H.
Huxley," Volume I., page 380.) It was a real stroke of genius to think of
such a plan. Lord, how I wish I had gone through such a course!

LETTER 273. TO FRANCIS GALTON. December 18th {1875}.

George has been explaining our differences. I have admitted in the new
edition (273/1. In the second edition (1875) of the "Variation of Animals
and Plants," Volume II., page 350, reference is made to Mr. Galton's
transfusion experiments, "Proc. R. Soc." XIX., page 393; also to Mr.
Galton's letter to "Nature," April 27th, 1871, page 502. This is a curious
mistake; the letter in "Nature," April 27th, 1871, is by Darwin himself,
and refers chiefly to the question whether gemmules may be supposed to be
in the blood. Mr. Galton's letter is in "Nature," May 4th, 1871, Volume
IV., page 5. See Letter 235.) (before seeing your essay) that perhaps the
gemmules are largely multiplied in the reproductive organs; but this does
not make me doubt that each unit of the whole system also sends forth its
gemmules. You will no doubt have thought of the following objection to
your views, and I should like to hear what your answer is. If two plants
are crossed, it often, or rather generally, happens that every part of
stem, leaf, even to the hairs, and flowers of the hybrid are intermediate
in character; and this hybrid will produce by buds millions on millions of
other buds all exactly reproducing the intermediate character. I cannot
doubt that every unit of the hybrid is hybridised and sends forth
hybridised gemmules. Here we have nothing to do with the reproductive
organs. There can hardly be a doubt from what we know that the same thing
would occur with all those animals which are capable of budding, and some
of these (as the compound Ascidians) are sufficiently complex and highly
organised.

LETTER 274. TO LAWSON TAIT. March 25th, 1876.

(274/1. The reference is to the theory put forward in the first edition of
"Variation of Animals and Plants," II., page 15, that the asserted
tendency to regeneration after the amputation of supernumerary digits in
man is a return to the recuperative powers characteristic of a "lowly
organised progenitor provided with more than five digits." Darwin's
recantation is at Volume I., page 459 of the second edition.)

Since reading your first article (274/2. Lawson Tait wrote two notices on
"The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication" in the
"Spectator" of March 4th, 1876, page 312, and March 25th, page 406.), Dr.
Rudinger has written to me and sent me an essay, in which he gives the
results of the MOST EXTENSIVE inquiries from all eminent surgeons in
Germany, and all are unanimous about non-growth of extra digits after
amputation. They explain some apparent cases, as Paget did to me. By the
way, I struck out of my second edition a quotation from Sir J. Simpson
about re-growth in the womb, as Paget demurred, and as I could not say how
a rudiment of a limb due to any cause could be distinguished from an
imperfect re-growth. Two or three days ago I had another letter from
Germany from a good naturalist, Dr. Kollmann (274/3. Dr. Kollmann was
Secretary of the Anthropologische Gesellschaft of Munich, in which Society
took place the discussion referred to in "Variation of Animals and
Plants," I., 459, as originating Darwin's doubts on the whole question.
The fresh evidence adduced by Kollmann as to the normal occurrence of a
rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians is Borus' paper, "Die sechste Zehe
der Anuren" in "Morpholog. Jahrbuch," Bd. I., page 435. On this subject
see Letter 178.), saying he was sorry that I had given up atavism and
extra digits, and telling me of new and good evidence of rudiments of a
rudimentary sixth digit in Batrachians (which I had myself seen, but given
up owing to Gegenbaur's views); but, with re-growth failing me, I could
not uphold my old notion.

LETTER 275. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(275/1. Mr. Romanes' reply to this letter is printed in his "Life and
Letters," page 93, where by an oversight it is dated 1880-81.)

H. Wedgwood, Esq., Hopedene, Dorking, May 29th {1876}.

As you are interested in pangenesis, and will some day, I hope, convert an
"airy nothing" into a substantial theory, I send by this post an essay by
Hackel (275/2. "Die Perigenesis der Plastidule oder die Wellenzeugung der
Lebenstheilchen," 79 pages. Berlin, 1876.) attacking Pan. and substituting
a molecular hypothesis. If I understand his views rightly, he would say
that with a bird which strengthened its wings by use, the formative
protoplasm of the strengthened parts became changed, and its molecular
vibrations consequently changed, and that these vibrations are transmitted
throughout the whole frame of the bird, and affect the sexual elements in
such a manner that the wings of the offspring are developed in a like
strengthened manner. I imagine he would say, in cases like those of Lord
Morton's mare (275/3. A nearly pure-bred Arabian chestnut mare bore a
hybrid to a quagga, and subsequently produced two striped colts by a black
Arabian horse: see "Animals and Plants," I., page 403. The case was
originally described in the "Philosophical Transactions," 1821, page 20.
For an account of recent work bearing on this question, see article on
"Zebras, Horses, and Hybrids," in the "Quarterly Review," October 1899.
See Letter 235.), that the vibrations from the protoplasm, or "plasson,"
of the seminal fluid of the zebra set plasson vibrating in the mare; and
that these vibrations continued until the hair of the second colt was
formed, and which consequently became barred like that of a zebra. How he
explains reversion to a remote ancestor, I know not. Perhaps I have
misunderstood him, though I have skimmed the whole with some care. He lays
much stress on inheritance being a form of unconscious memory, but how far
this is part of his molecular vibration, I do not understand. His views
make nothing clearer to me; but this may be my fault. No one, I presume,
would doubt about molecular movements of some kind. His essay is clever
and striking. If you read it (but you must not on my account), I should
much like to hear your judgment, and you can return it at any time. The
blue lines are Hackel's to call my attention.

We have come here for rest for me, which I have much needed; and shall
remain here for about ten days more, and then home to work, which is my
sole pleasure in life. I hope your splendid Medusa work and your
experiments on pangenesis are going on well. I heard from my son Frank
yesterday that he was feverish with a cold, and could not dine with the
physiologists, which I am very sorry for, as I should have heard what they
think about the new Bill. I see that you are one of the secretaries to
this young Society.

LETTER 276. TO H.N. MOSELEY. Down, November 22nd {1876}.

It is very kind of you to send me the Japanese books, which are extremely
curious and amusing. My son Frank is away, but I am sure he will be much
obliged for the two papers which you have sent him.

Thanks, also, for your interesting note. It is a pity that Peripatus
(276/1. Moseley "On the Structure and Development of Peripatus capensis"
("Phil. Trans. R. Soc." Volume 164, page 757, 1874). "When suddenly
handled or irritated, they (i.e. Peripatus) shoot out fine threads of a
remarkably viscid and tenacious milky fluid... projected from the tips of
the oral papillae" (page 759).) is so stupid as to spit out the viscid
matter at the wrong end of its body; it would have been beautiful thus to
have explained the origin of the spider's web.

LETTER 277. NAPHTALI LEWY TO CHARLES DARWIN.

(277/1. The following letter refers to a book, "Toledoth Adam," written by
a learned Jew with the object of convincing his co-religionists of the
truth of the theory of evolution. The translation we owe to the late Henry
Bradshaw, University Librarian at Cambridge. The book is unfortunately no
longer to be found in Mr. Darwin's library.)

{1876}.

To the Lord, the Prince, who "stands for an ensign of the people" (Isa.
xi. 10), the Investigator of the generation, the "bright son of the
morning" (Isa. xiv. 12), Charles Darwin, may he live long!

"From the rising of the sun and from the west" (Isa. xlv. 6) all the
nations know concerning the Torah (Theory) (277/2. Lit., instruction. The
Torah is the Pentateuch, strictly speaking, the source of all knowledge.)
which has "proceeded from thee for a light of the people" (Isa. li. 4),
and the nations "hear and say, It is truth" (Isa. xliii. 9). But with "the
portion of my people" (Jer. x. 16), Jacob, "the lot of my inheritance"
(Deut. xxxii. 9), it is not so. This nation, "the ancient people" (Isa.
xliv. 7), which "remembers the former things and considers the things of
old (Isa. xliii. 18), "knows not, neither doth it understand" (Psalm
lxxxii. 5), that by thy Torah (instruction or theory) thou hast thrown
light upon their Torah (the Law), and that the eyes of the Hebrews (277/3.
One letter in this word changed would make the word "blind," which is what
Isaiah uses in the passage alluded to.) "can now see out of obscurity and
out of darkness" (Isa. xxix. 18). Therefore "I arose" (Judges v. 7) and
wrote this book, "Toledoth Adam" ("the generations of man," Gen. v. 1), to
teach the children of my people, the seed of Jacob, the Torah
(instruction) which thou hast given for an inheritance to all the nations
of the earth.

And I have "proceeded to do a marvellous work among this people, even a
marvellous work and a wonder" (Isa. xxix. 14), enabling them now to read
in the Torah of Moses our teacher, "plainly and giving the sense" (Neh.
viii. 8), that which thou hast given in thy Torahs (works of instruction).
And when my people perceive that thy view has by no means "gone astray"
(Num. v. 12, 19, etc.) from the Torah of God, they will hold thy name in
the highest reverence, and "will at the same time glorify the God of
Israel" (Isa. xxix. 23).

"The vision of all this" (Isa. xxix. 11) thou shalt see, O Prince of
Wisdom, in this book, "which goeth before me" (Gen. xxxii. 21); and
whatever thy large understanding finds to criticise in it, come, "write it
in a table and note it in a book" (Isa. xxx. 8); and allow me to name my
work with thy name, which is glorified and greatly revered by

Thy servant, Naphtali Hallevi {i.e. the Levite}.

Dated here in the city of Radom, in the province of Poland, in the month
of Nisan in the year 636, according to the lesser computation (i.e. A.M.
{5}636 = A.D. 1876).

LETTER 278. TO OTTO ZACHARIAS. 1877.

When I was on board the "Beagle" I believed in the permanence of species,
but, as far as I can remember, vague doubts occasionally flitted across my
mind. On my return home in the autumn of 1836 I immediately began to
prepare my journal for publication, and then saw how many facts indicated
the common descent of species (278/1. "The facts to which reference is
here made were, without doubt, eminently fitted to attract the attention
of a philosophical thinker; but until the relations of the existing with
the extinct species and of the species of the different geographical
areas, with one another were determined with some exactness, they afforded
but an unsafe foundation for speculation. It was not possible that this
determination should have been effected before the return of the "Beagle"
to England; and thus the date which Darwin (writing in 1837) assigns to
the dawn of the new light which was rising in his mind becomes
intelligible."—From "Darwiniana," Essays by Thomas H. Huxley,
London, 1893; pages 274-5.), so that in July, 1837, I opened a notebook to
record any facts which might bear on the question; but I did not become
convinced that species were mutable until, I think, two or three years had
elapsed. (278/2. On this last point see page 38.)

LETTER 279. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(279/1. The following letter refers to MS. notes by Romanes, which we have
not seen. Darwin's remarks on it are, however, sufficiently clear.)

My address will be "Bassett, Southampton," June 11th {1877}.

I have received the crossing paper which you were so kind as to send me.
It is very clear, and I quite agree with it; but the point in question has
not been a difficulty to me, as I have never believed in a new form
originating from a single variation. What I have called unconscious
selection by man illustrates, as it seems to me, the same principle as
yours, within the same area. Man purchases the individual animals or
plants which seem to him the best in any respect—some more so, and
some less so—and, without any matching or pairing, the breed in the
course of time is surely altered. The absence in numerous instances of
intermediate or blending forms, in the border country between two closely
allied geographical races or close species, seemed to me a greater
difficulty when I discussed the subject in the "Origin."

With respect to your illustration, it formerly drove me half mad to
attempt to account for the increase or diminution of the productiveness of
an organism; but I cannot call to mind where my difficulty lay. (279/2.
See Letters 209-16.) Natural Selection always applies, as I think, to each
individual and its offspring, such as its seeds, eggs, which are formed by
the mother, and which are protected in various ways. (279/3. It was in
regard to this point that Romanes had sent the MS. to Darwin. In a letter
of June 16th he writes: "It was with reference to the possibility of
Natural Selection acting on organic types as distinguished from
individuals,—a possibility which you once told me did not seem at
all clear.") There does not seem any difficulty in understanding how the
productiveness of an organism might be increased; but it was, as far as I
can remember, in reducing productiveness that I was most puzzled. But why
I scribble about this I know not.

I have read your review of Mr. Allen's book (279/4. See "Nature" (June
7th, 1877, page 98), a review of Grant Allen's "Physiological
Aesthetics."), and it makes me more doubtful, even, than I was before
whether he has really thrown much light on the subject.

I am glad to hear that some physiologists take the same view as I did
about your giving too much credit to H. Spencer—though, heaven
knows, this is a rare fault. (279/5. The reference is to Romanes' lecture
on Medusa, given at the Royal Institution, May 25th. (See "Nature," XVI.,
pages 231, 269, 289.) It appears from a letter of Romanes (June 6th) that
it was the abstract in the "Times" that gave the impression referred to.
References to Mr. Spencer's theories of nerve-genesis occur in "Nature,"
pages 232, 271, 289.)

The more I think of your medusa-nerve-work the more splendid it seems to
me.

LETTER 280. TO A. DE CANDOLLE. Down, August 3rd, 1877.

I must have the pleasure of thanking you for your long and interesting
letter. The cause and means of the transition from an hermaphrodite to a
unisexual condition seems to me a very perplexing problem, and I shall be
extremely glad to read your remarks on Smilax, whenever I receive the
essay which you kindly say that you will send me. (280/1. "Monographiae
Phanerogamarum," Volume I. In his treatment of the Smilaceae, De Candolle
distinguishes:—Heterosmilax which has dioecious flowers without a
trace of aborted stamens or pistils, Smilax with sterile stamens in the
female flowers, and Rhipogonum with hermaphrodite flowers.) There is much
justice in your criticisms (280/2. The passage criticised by De Candolle
is in "Forms of Flowers" (page 7): "It is a natural inference that their
corollas have been increased in size for this special purpose." De
Candolle goes on to give an account of the "recherche linguistique,"
which, with characteristic fairness, he undertook to ascertain whether the
word "purpose" differs in meaning from the corresponding French word
"but.") on my use of the terms object, end, purpose; but those who believe
that organs have been gradually modified for Natural Selection for a
special purpose may, I think, use the above terms correctly, though no
conscious being has intervened. I have found much difficulty in my
occasional attempts to avoid these terms, but I might perhaps have always
spoken of a beneficial or serviceable effect. My son Francis will be
interested by hearing about Smilax. He has dispatched to you a copy of his
paper on the glands of Dipsacus (280/3. "Quart. Journ. Mic. Sci." 1877.),
and I hope that you will find time to read it, for the case seems to me a
new and highly remarkable one. We are now hard at work on an attempt to
make out the function or use of the bloom or waxy secretion on the leaves
and fruit of many plants; but I doubt greatly whether our experiments will
tell us much. (280/4. "As it is we have made out clearly that with some
plants (chiefly succulent) the bloom checks evaporation—with some
certainly prevents attacks of insects; with some sea-shore plants prevents
injury from salt-water, and I believe, with a few prevents injury from
pure water resting on the leaves." (See letter to Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer,
"Life and Letters," III., page 341. A paper on the same subject by Francis
Darwin was published in the "Journ. Linn. Soc." XXII.)) If you have any
decided opinion whether plants with conspicuously glaucous leaves are more
frequent in hot than in temperate or cold, in dry than in damp countries,
I should be grateful if you would add to your many kindnesses by informing
me. Pray give my kind remembrances to your son, and tell him that my son
has been trying on a large scale the effects of feeding Drosera with meat,
and the results are most striking and far more favourable than I
anticipated.

LETTER 281. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(281/1. Published in the "Life and Letters" of Romanes, page 66.)

Down, Saturday Night {1877}.

I have just finished your lecture (281/2. "The Scientific Evidence of
Organic Evolution: a Discourse" (delivered before the Philosophical
Society of Ross-shire), Inverness, 1877. It was reprinted in the
"Fortnightly Review," and was afterwards worked up into a book under the
above title.); it is an admirable scientific argument, and most powerful.
I wish that it could be sown broadcast throughout the land. Your courage
is marvellous, and I wonder that you were not stoned on the spot—and
in Scotland! Do please tell me how it was received in the Lecture Hall.
About man being made like a monkey (page 37 (281/3. "And if you reject the
natural explanation of hereditary descent, you can only suppose that the
Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the
image of the ape" ("Discourse," page 37).)) is quite new to me, and the
argument in an earlier place (page 8 (281/4. At page 8 of the "Discourse"
the speaker referred to the law "which Sir William Hamilton called the Law
of Parsimony—or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of
higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the desired
effects," as constituting the "only logical barrier between Science and
Superstition.")) on the law of parsimony admirably put. Yes, page 21
(281/5. "Discourse," page 21. If we accept the doctrines of individual
creations and ideal types, we must believe that the Deity acted "with no
other apparent motive than to suggest to us, by every one of the
observable facts, that the ideal types are nothing other than the bonds of
a lineal descent.") is new to me. All strike me as very clear, and,
considering small space, you have chosen your lines of reasoning
excellently.

The few last pages are awfully powerful, in my opinion.

Sunday Morning.—The above was written last night in the enthusiasm
of the moment, and now—this dark, dismal Sunday morning—I
fully agree with what I said.

I am very sorry to hear about the failures in the graft experiments, and
not from your own fault or ill-luck. Trollope in one of his novels gives
as a maxim of constant use by a brickmaker—"It is dogged as does it"
(281/6. "Tell 'ee what, Master Crawley;—and yer reverence mustn't
think as I means to be preaching; there ain't nowt a man can't bear if
he'll only be dogged. You go whome, Master Crawley, and think o' that, and
may be it'll do ye a good yet. It's dogged as does it. It ain't thinking
about it." (Giles Hoggett, the old Brickmaker, in "The Last Chronicle of
Barset," Volume II., 1867, page 188.))—and I have often and often
thought that this is the motto for every scientific worker. I am sure it
is yours—if you do not give up pangenesis with wicked imprecations.

By the way, G. Jager has brought out in "Kosmos" a chemical sort of
pangenesis bearing chiefly on inheritance. (281/7. Several papers by Jager
on "Inheritance" were published in the first volume of "Kosmos," 1877.)

I cannot conceive why I have not offered my garden for your experiments. I
would attend to the plants, as far as mere care goes, with pleasure; but
Down is an awkward place to reach.

Would it be worth while to try if the "Fortnightly" would republish it
{i.e. the lecture}?

LETTER 282. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(282/1. In 1877 the honorary degree of LL.D. was conferred on Mr. Darwin
by the University of Cambridge. At the dinner given on the occasion by the
Philosophical Society, Mr. Huxley responded to the toast of the evening
with the speech of which an authorised version is given by Mr. L. Huxley
in the "Life and Letters" of his father (Volume I., page 479). Mr. Huxley
said, "But whether the that doctrine {of evolution} be true or whether it
be false, I wish to express the deliberate opinion, that from Aristotle's
great summary of the biological knowledge of his time down to the present
day, there is nothing comparable to the "Origin of Species," as a
connected survey of the phenomena of life permeated and vivified by a
central idea."

In the first part of the speech there was a brilliant sentence which he
described as a touch of the whip "tied round with ribbons," and this was
perhaps a little hard on the supporters of evolution in the University.
Mr. Huxley said "Instead of offering her honours when they ran a chance of
being crushed beneath the accumulated marks of approbation of the whole
civilised world, the University has waited until the trophy was finished,
and has crowned the edifice with the delicate wreath of academic
appreciation.")

Down, Monday night, November 19th {1877}.

I cannot rest easy without telling you more gravely than I did when we met
for five minutes near the Museum, how deeply I have felt the many generous
things (as far as Frank could remember them) which you said about me at
the dinner. Frank came early next morning boiling over with enthusiasm
about your speech. You have indeed always been to me a most generous
friend, but I know, alas, too well how greatly you overestimate me.
Forgive me for bothering you with these few lines.

(282/2. The following extract from a letter (February 10th, 1878) to his
old schoolfellow, Mr. J. Price, gives a characteristic remark about the
honorary degree.)

"I am very much obliged for your kind congratulations about the LL.D. Why
the Senate conferred it on me I know not in the least. I was astonished to
hear that the R. Prof. of Divinity and several other great Dons attended,
and several such men have subscribed, as I am informed, for the picture
for the University to commemorate the honour conferred on me."

LETTER 283. TO W. BOWMAN.

(283/1. We have not discovered to what prize the following letter to the
late Sir W. Bowman (the well known surgeon) refers.)

Down, February 22nd, 1878.

I received your letter this morning, and it was quite impossible that you
should receive an answer by 4 p.m. to-day. But this does not signify in
the least, for your proposal seems to me a very good one, and I most
entirely agree with you that it is far better to suggest some special
question rather than to have a general discussion compiled from books. The
rule that the Essay must be "illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of
the Almighty" would confine the subjects to be proposed. With respect to
the Vegetable Kingdom, I could suggest two or three subjects about which,
as it seems to me, information is much required; but these subjects would
require a long course of experiment, and unfortunately there is hardly any
one in this country who seems inclined to devote himself to experiments.

LETTER 284. TO J. TORBITT.

(284/1. Mr. Torbitt was engaged in trying to produce by methodical
selection and cross-fertilisation a fungus-proof race of the potato. The
plan is fully described in the "Life and Letters," III., page 348. The
following letter is given in additional illustration of the keen interest
Mr. Darwin took in the project.)

Down, Monday, March 4th, 1878.

I have nothing good to report. Mr. Caird called upon me yesterday; both he
and Mr. Farrer (284/2. The late Lord Farrer.) have been most energetic and
obliging. There is no use in thinking about the Agricultural Society. Mr.
Caird has seen several persons on the subject, especially Mr. Carruthers,
Botanist to the Society. He (Mr. Carruthers) thinks the attempt hopeless,
but advances in a long memorandum sent to Mr. Caird, reasons which I am
convinced are not sound. He specifies two points, however, which are well
worthy of your consideration—namely, that a variety should be tested
three years before its soundness can be trusted; and especially it should
be grown under a damp climate. Mr. Carruthers' opinion on this head is
valuable because he was employed by the Society in judging the varieties
sent in for the prize offered a year or two ago. If I had strength to get
up a memorial to Government, I believe that I could succeed; for Sir J.
Hooker writes that he believes you are on the right path; but I do not
know to whom else to apply whose judgment would have weight with
Government, and I really have not strength to discuss the matter and
convert persons.

At Mr. Farrer's request, when we hoped the Agricultural Society might
undertake it, I wrote to him a long letter giving him my opinion on the
subject; and this letter Mr. Caird took with him yesterday, and will
consider with Mr. Farrer whether any application can be made to
Government.

I am, however, far from sanguine. I shall see Mr. Farrer this evening, and
will do what I can. When I receive back my letter I will send it to you
for your perusal.

After much reflection it seems to me that your best plan will be, if we
fail to get Government aid, to go on during the present year, on a reduced
scale, in raising new cross-fertilised varieties, and next year, if you
are able, testing the power of endurance of only the most promising kind.
If it were possible it would be very advisable for you to get some grown
on the wet western side of Ireland. If you succeed in procuring a
fungus-proof variety you may rely on it that its merits would soon become
known locally and it would afterwards spread rapidly far and wide. Mr.
Caird gave me a striking instance of such a case in Scotland. I return
home to-morrow morning.

I have the pleasure to enclose a cheque for 100 pounds. If you receive a
Government grant, I ought to be repaid.

P.S. If I were in your place I would not expend any labour or money in
publishing what you have already done, or in sending seeds or tubers to
any one. I would work quietly on till some sure results were obtained. And
these would be so valuable that your work in this case would soon be
known. I would also endeavour to pass as severe a judgment as possible on
the state of the tubers and plants.

LETTER 285. TO E. VON MOJSISOVICS. Down, June 1st, 1878.

I have at last found time to read {the} first chapter of your "Dolomit
Riffe" (285/1. "Dolomitriffe Sudtirols und Venetiens." Wien, 1878.), and
have been exceedingly interested by it. What a wonderful change in the
future of geological chronology you indicate, by assuming the
descent-theory to be established, and then taking the graduated changes of
the same group of organisms as the true standard! I never hoped to live to
see such a step even proposed by any one. (285/2. Published in "Life and
Letters," III., pages 234, 235.)

Nevertheless, I saw dimly that each bed in a formation could contain only
the organisms proper to a certain depth, and to other there existing
conditions, and that all the intermediate forms between one marine species
and another could rarely be preserved in the same place and bed. Oppel,
Neumayr, and yourself will confer a lasting and admirable service on the
noble science of Geology, if you can spread your views so as to be
generally known and accepted.

With respect to the continental and oceanic periods common to the whole
northern hemisphere, to which you refer, I have sometimes speculated that
the present distribution of the land and sea over the world may have
formerly been very different to what it now is; and that new genera and
families may have been developed on the shores of isolated tracts in the
south, and afterwards spread to the north.

LETTER 286. TO J.W. JUDD. Down, June 27th, 1878.

I am heartily glad to hear of your intended marriage. A good wife is the
supreme blessing in this life, and I hope and believe from what you say
that you will be as happy as I have been in this respect. May your future
geological work be as valuable as that which you have already done; and
more than this need not be wished for any man. The practical teaching of
Geology seems an excellent idea.

Many thanks for Neumayr, (286/1. Probably a paper on "Die Congerien und
Paludinenschichten Slavoniens und deren Fauna. Ein Beitrag zur
Descendenz-Theorie," "Wien. Geol. Abhandl." VII. (Heft 3), 1874-82.), but
I have already received and read a copy of the same, or at least of a very
similar essay, and admirably good it seemed to me.

This essay, and one by Mojsisovics (286/2. See note to Letter 285.), which
I have lately read, show what Palaeontology in the future will do for the
classification and sequence of formations. It delighted me to see so
inverted an order of proceeding—viz., the assuming the descent of
species as certain, and then taking the changes of closely allied forms as
the standard of geological time. My health is better than it was a few
years ago, but I never pass a day without much discomfort and the sense of
extreme fatigue.

(286/3. We owe to Professor Judd the following interesting recollections
of Mr. Darwin, written about 1883:—

"On this last occasion, when I congratulated him on his seeming better
condition of health, he told me of the cause for anxiety which he had in
the state of his heart. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that he had a kind
of presentiment that his end was approaching. When I left him, he insisted
on conducting me to the door, and there was that in his tone and manner
which seemed to convey to me the sad intelligence that it was not merely a
temporary farewell, though he himself was perfectly cheerful and happy.

"It is impossible for me adequately to express the impression made upon my
mind by my various conversations with Mr. Darwin. His extreme modesty led
him to form the lowest estimate of his own labours, and a correspondingly
extravagant idea of the value of the work done by others. His deference to
the arguments and suggestions of men greatly his juniors, and his
unaffected sympathy in their pursuits, was most marked and characteristic;
indeed, he, the great master of science, used to speak, and I am sure
felt, as though he were appealing to superior authority for information in
all his conversations. It was only when a question was fully discussed
with him that one became conscious of the fund of information he could
bring to its elucidation, and the breadth of thought with which he had
grasped it. Of his gentle, loving nature, of which I had so many proofs, I
need not write; no one could be with him, even for a few minutes, without
being deeply impressed by his grateful kindliness and goodness.")

LETTER 287. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, August 15th, 1878.

I thank you very sincerely for your kind and interesting letter. It would
be false in me to pretend that I care very much about my election to the
Institute, but the sympathy of some few of my friends has gratified me
deeply.

I am extremely glad to hear that you are going to publish a work on the
more ancient fossil plants; and I thank you beforehand for the volume
which you kindly say that you will send me. I earnestly hope that you will
give, at least incidentally, the results at which you have arrived with
respect to the more recent Tertiary plants; for the close gradation of
such forms seems to me a fact of paramount importance for the principle of
evolution. Your cases are like those on the gradation in the genus Equus,
recently discovered by Marsh in North America.

LETTER 288. TO THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.

(288/1. The following letter was published in "Nature," March 5th, 1891,
Volume XLIII., page 415, together with a note from the late Duke of
Argyll, in which he stated that the letter had been written to him by Mr.
Darwin in reply to the question, "why it was that he did assume the unity
of mankind as descended from a single pair." The Duke added that in the
reply Mr. Darwin "does not repudiate this interpretation of his theory,
but simply proceeds to explain and to defend the doctrine." On a former
occasion the Duke of Argyll had "alluded as a fact to the circumstance
that Charles Darwin assumed mankind to have arisen at one place, and
therefore in a single pair." The letter from Darwin was published in
answer to some scientific friends, who doubted the fact and asked for the
reference on which the statement was based.)

Down, September 23rd, 1878.

The problem which you state so clearly is a very interesting one, on which
I have often speculated. As far as I can judge, the improbability is
extreme that the same well-characterised species should be produced in two
distinct countries, or at two distinct times. It is certain that the same
variation may arise in two distinct places, as with albinism or with the
nectarine on peach-trees. But the evidence seems to me overwhelming that a
well-marked species is the product, not of a single or of a few
variations, but of a long series of modifications, each modification
resulting chiefly from adaptation to infinitely complex conditions
(including the inhabitants of the same country), with more or less
inheritance of all the preceding modifications. Moreover, as variability
depends more on the nature of the organism than on that of the
environment, the variations will tend to differ at each successive stage
of descent. Now it seems to me improbable in the highest degree that a
species should ever have been exposed in two places to infinitely complex
relations of exactly the same nature during a long series of
modifications. An illustration will perhaps make what I have said clearer,
though it applies only to the less important factors of inheritance and
variability, and not to adaptation—viz., the improbability of two
men being born in two countries identical in body and mind. If, however,
it be assumed that a species at each successive stage of its modification
was surrounded in two distinct countries or times, by exactly the same
assemblage of plants and animals, and by the same physical conditions,
then I can see no theoretical difficulty {in} such a species giving birth
to the new form in the two countries. If you will look to the sixth
edition of my "Origin," at page 100, you will find a somewhat analogous
discussion, perhaps more intelligible than this letter.

LETTER 289. W.T. THISELTON-DYER TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

(289/1. The following letter ("Nature," Volume XLIII., page 535)
criticises the interpretation given by the Duke to Mr. Darwin's letter.)

Royal Gardens, Kew, March 27th {1891}.

In "Nature" of March 5th (page 415), the Duke of Argyll has printed a very
interesting letter of Mr. Darwin's, from which he drew the inference that
the writer "assumed mankind to have arisen...in a single pair." I do not
think myself that the letter bears this interpretation. But the point in
its most general aspect is a very important one, and is often found to
present some difficulty to students of Mr. Darwin's writings.

Quite recently I have found by accident, amongst the papers of the late
Mr. Bentham at Kew, a letter of friendly criticism from Mr. Darwin upon
the presidential address which Mr. Bentham delivered to the Linnean
Society on May 24th, 1869. This letter, I think, has been overlooked and
not published previously. In it Mr. Darwin expresses himself with regard
to the multiple origin of races and some other points in very explicit
language. Prof. Meldola, to whom I mentioned in conversation the existence
of the letter, urged me strongly to print it. This, therefore, I now do,
with the addition of a few explanatory notes.

LETTER 290. TO G. BENTHAM. Down, November 25th, 1869.

(290/1. The notes to this letter are by Sir W. Thiselton-Dyer, and
appeared in "Nature," loc. cit.)

I was greatly interested by your address, which I have now read thrice,
and which I believe will have much influence on all who read it. But you
are mistaken in thinking that I ever said you were wrong on any point. All
that I meant was that on certain points, and these very doubtful points, I
was inclined to differ from you. And now, on further considering the point
on which some two or three months ago I felt most inclined to differ—viz.,
on isolation—I find I differ very little. What I have to say is
really not worth saying, but as I should be very sorry not to do whatever
you asked, I will scribble down the slightly dissentient thoughts which
have occurred to me. It would be an endless job to specify the points in
which you have interested me; but I may just mention the relation of the
extreme western flora of Europe (some such very vague thoughts have
crossed my mind, relating to the Glacial period) with South Africa, and
your remarks on the contrast of passive and active distribution.

Page lxx.—I think the contingency of a rising island, not as yet
fully stocked with plants, ought always to be kept in mind when speaking
of colonisation.

Page lxxiv.—I have met with nothing which makes me in the least
doubt that large genera present a greater number of varieties relatively
to their size than do small genera. (290/2. Bentham thought "degree of
variability... like other constitutional characters, in the first place an
individual one, which...may become more or less hereditary, and therefore
specific; and thence, but in a very faint degree, generic." He seems to
mean to argue against the conclusion which Sir Joseph Hooker had quoted
from Mr. Darwin that "species of large genera are more variable than those
of small." {On large genera varying, see Letter 53.}) Hooker was convinced
by my data, never as yet published in full, only abstracted in the
"Origin."

Page lxxviii.—I dispute whether a new race or species is
necessarily, or even generally, descended from a single or pair of
parents. The whole body of individuals, I believe, become altered together—like
our race-horses, and like all domestic breeds which are changed through
"unconscious selection" by man. (290/3. Bentham had said: "We must also
admit that every race has probably been the offspring of one parent or
pair of parents, and consequently originated in one spot." The Duke of
Argyll inverts the proposition.)

When such great lengths of time are considered as are necessary to change
a specific form, I greatly doubt whether more or less rapid powers of
multiplication have more than the most insignificant weight. These powers,
I think, are related to greater or less destruction in early life.

Page lxxix.—I still think you rather underrate the importance of
isolation. I have come to think it very important from various grounds;
the anomalous and quasi-extinct forms on islands, etc., etc., etc.

With respect to areas with numerous "individually durable" forms, can it
be said that they generally present a "broken" surface with "impassable
barriers"? This, no doubt, is true in certain cases, as Teneriffe. But
does this hold with South-West Australia or the Cape? I much doubt. I have
been accustomed to look at the cause of so many forms as being partly an
arid or dry climate (as De Candolle insists) which indirectly leads to
diversified {?} conditions; and, secondly, to isolation from the rest of
the world during a very long period, so that other more dominant forms
have not entered, and there has been ample time for much specification and
adaptation of character.

Page lxxx.—I suppose you think that the Restiaceae, Proteaceae
(290/4. It is doubtful whether Bentham did think so. In his 1870 address
he says: "I cannot resist the opinion that all presumptive evidence is
against European Proteaceae, and that all direct evidence in their favour
has broken down upon cross-examination."), etc., etc., once extended over
the world, leaving fragments in the south.

You in several places speak of distribution of plants as if exclusively
governed by soil and climate. I know that you do not mean this, but I
regret whenever a chance is omitted of pointing out that the struggle with
other plants (and hostile animals) is far more important.

I told you that I had nothing worth saying, but I have given you my
THOUGHTS.

How detestable are the Roman numerals! why should not the President's
addresses, which are often, and I am sure in this case, worth more than
all the rest of the number, be paged with Christian figures?

LETTER 291. TO R. MELDOLA.

(291/1. "This letter was in reply to a suggestion that in his preface Mr.
Darwin should point out by references to "The Origin of Species" and his
other writings how far he had already traced out the path which Weismann
went over. The suggestion was made because in a great many of the
continental writings upon the theory of descent, many of the points which
had been clearly foreshadowed, and in some cases even explicitly stated by
Darwin, had been rediscovered and published as though original. In the
notes to my edition of Weismann I have endeavoured to do Darwin full
justice.—R.M." See Letter 310.)

4, Bryanston Street, November 26th, 1878.

I am very sorry to say that I cannot agree to your suggestion. An author
is never a fit judge of his own work, and I should dislike extremely
pointing out when and how Weismann's conclusions and work agreed with my
own. I feel sure that I ought not to do this, and it would be to me an
intolerable task. Nor does it seem to me the proper office of the preface,
which is to show what the book contains, and that the contents appear to
me valuable. But I can see no objection for you, if you think fit, to
write an introduction with remarks or criticisms of any kind. Of course, I
would be glad to advise you on any point as far as lay in my power, but as
a whole I could have nothing to do with it, on the grounds above
specified, that an author cannot and ought not to attempt to judge his own
works, or compare them with others. I am sorry to refuse to do anything
which you wish.

LETTER 292. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, January 18th, 1879.

I have just finished your present of the Life of Hume (292/1. "Hume" in
Mr. Morley's "English Men of Letters" series. Of the biographical part of
this book Mr. Huxley wrote, in a letter to Mr. Skelton, January 1879
("Life of T.H. Huxley," II., page 7): "It is the nearest approach to a
work of fiction of which I have yet been guilty."), and must thank you for
the great pleasure which it has given me. Your discussions are, as it
seems to me, clear to a quite marvellous degree, and many of the little
interspersed flashes of wit are delightful. I particularly enjoyed the
pithy judgment in about five words on Comte. (292/2. Possibly the passage
referred to is on page 52.) Notwithstanding the clearness of every
sentence, the subjects are in part so difficult that I found them stiff
reading. I fear, therefore, that it will be too stiff for the general
public; but I heartily hope that this will prove to be a mistake, and in
this case the intelligence of the public will be greatly exalted in my
eyes. The writing of this book must have been awfully hard work, I should
think.

LETTER 293. TO F. MULLER. Down, March 4th {1879}.

I thank you cordially for your letter. Your facts and discussion on the
loss of the hairs on the legs of the caddis-flies seem to me the most
important and interesting thing which I have read for a very long time. I
hope that you will not disapprove, but I have sent your letter to "Nature"
(293/1. Fritz Muller, "On a Frog having Eggs on its Back—On the
Abortion of the Hairs on the Legs of certain Caddis-Flies, etc.": Muller's
letter and one from Charles Darwin were published in "Nature," Volume
XIX., page 462, 1879.), with a few prefatory remarks, pointing out to the
general reader the importance of your view, and stating that I have been
puzzled for many years on this very point. If, as I am inclined to
believe, your view can be widely extended, it will be a capital gain to
the doctrine of evolution. I see by your various papers that you are
working away energetically, and, wherever you look, you seem to discover
something quite new and extremely interesting. Your brother also continues
to do fine work on the fertilisation of flowers and allied subjects.

I have little or nothing to tell you about myself. I go slowly crawling on
with my present subject—the various and complicated movements of
plants. I have not been very well of late, and am tired to-day, so will
write no more. With the most cordial sympathy in all your work, etc.

LETTER 294. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, April 19th, 1879.

Many thanks for the book. (294/1. Ernst Hackel's "Freedom in Science and
Teaching," with a prefatory note by T.H. Huxley, 1879. Professor Hackel
has recently published (without permission) a letter in which Mr. Darwin
comments severely on Virchow. It is difficult to say which would have
pained Mr. Darwin more—the affront to a colleague, or the breach of
confidence in a friend.) I have read only the preface...It is capital, and
I enjoyed the tremendous rap on the knuckles which you gave Virchow at the
close. What a pleasure it must be to write as you can do!

LETTER 295. TO E.S. MORSE. Down, October 21st, 1879.

Although you are so kind as to tell me not to write, I must just thank you
for the proofs of your paper, which has interested me greatly. (295/1. See
"The Shell Mounds of Omori" in the "Memoirs of the Science Department of
the Univ. of Tokio," Volume I., Part I., 1879. The ridges on Arca are
mentioned at page 25. In "Nature," April 15th, 1880, Mr. Darwin published
a letter by Mr. Morse relating to the review of the above paper, which
appeared in "Nature," XXI., page 350. Mr. Darwin introduces Mr. Morse's
letter with some prefatory remarks. The correspondence is republished in
the "American Naturalist," September, 1880.) The increase in the number of
ridges in the three species of Arca seems to be a very noteworthy fact, as
does the increase of size in so many, yet not all, the species. What a
constant state of fluctuation the whole organic world seems to be in! It
is interesting to hear that everywhere the first change apparently is in
the proportional numbers of the species. I was much struck with the fact
in the upraised shells of Coquimbo, in Chili, as mentioned in my
"Geological Observations on South America."

Of all the wonders in the world, the progress of Japan, in which you have
been aiding, seems to me about the most wonderful.

LETTER 296. TO A.R. WALLACE. Down, January 5th 1880.

As this note requires no sort of answer, you must allow me to express my
lively admiration of your paper in the "Nineteenth Century." (296/1.
"Nineteenth Century," January 1880, page 93, "On the Origin of Species and
Genera.") You certainly are a master in the difficult art of clear
exposition. It is impossible to urge too often that the selection from a
single varying individual or of a single varying organ will not suffice.
You have worked in capitally Allen's admirable researches. (296/2. J.A.
Allen, "On the Mammals and Winter Birds of East Florida, etc." ("Bull.
Mus. Comp. Zoolog. Harvard," Volume II.) As usual, you delight to honour
me more than I deserve. When I have written about the extreme slowness of
Natural Selection (296/3. Mr. Wallace makes a calculation based on Allen's
results as to the very short period in which the formation of a race of
birds differing 10 to 20 per cent. from the average in length of wing and
strength of beak might conceivably be effected. He thinks that the
slowness of the action of Natural Selection really depends on the slowness
of the changes naturally occurring in the physical conditions, etc.) (in
which I hope I may be wrong), I have chiefly had in my mind the effects of
intercrossing. I subscribe to almost everything you say excepting the last
short sentence. (296/4. The passage in question is as follows: "I have
also attempted to show that the causes which have produced the separate
species of one genus, of one family, or perhaps of one order, from a
common ancestor, are not necessarily the same as those which have produced
the separate orders, classes, and sub-kingdoms from more remote common
ancestors. That all have been alike produced by 'descent with
modification' from a few primitive types, the whole body of evidence
clearly indicates; but while individual variation with Natural Selection
is proved to be adequate for the production of the former, we have no
proof and hardly any evidence that it is adequate to initiate those
important divergences of type which characterise the latter." In this
passage stress should be laid (as Mr. Wallace points out to us) on the
word PROOF. He by no means asserts that the causes which have produced the
species of a genus are inadequate to produce greater differences. His
object is rather to urge the difference between proof and probability.)

LETTER 297. TO J.H. FABRE.

(297/1. A letter to M. Fabre is given in "Life and Letters," III., page
220, in which the suggestion is made of rotating the insect before a
"homing" experiment occurs.)

Down, February 20th, 1880.

I thank you for your kind letter, and am delighted that you will try the
experiment of rotation. It is very curious that such a belief should be
held about cats in your country (297/2. M. Fabre had written from
Serignan, Vaucluse: "Parmi la population des paysans de mon village,
l'habitude est de faire tourner dans un sac le chat que l'on se propose de
porter ailleurs, et dont on veut empecher le retour. J'ignore si cette
pratique obtient du succes."), I never heard of anything of the kind in
England. I was led, as I believe, to think of the experiment from having
read in Wrangel's "Travels in Siberia" (297/3. Admiral Ferdinand Petrovich
von Wrangell, "Le Nord de la Siberie, Voyage parmi les Peuplades de la
Russie asiatique, etc." Paris, 1843.) of the wonderful power which the
Samoyedes possess of keeping their direction in a fog whilst travelling in
a tortuous line through broken ice. With respect to cats, I have seen an
account that in Belgium there is a society which gives prizes to the cat
which can soonest find its way home, and for this purpose they are carried
to distant parts of the city.

Here would be a capital opportunity for trying rotation.

I am extremely glad to hear that your book will probably be translated
into English.

P.S.—I shall be much pleased to hear the result of your experiments.

LETTER 298. TO J.H. FABRE. Down, January 21st, 1881.

I am much obliged for your very interesting letter. Your results appear to
me highly important, as they eliminate one means by which animals might
perhaps recognise direction; and this, from what has been said about
savages, and from our own consciousness, seemed the most probable means.
If you think it worth while, you can of course mention my name in relation
to this subject.

Should you succeed in eliminating a sense of the magnetic currents of the
earth, you would leave the field of investigation quite open. I suppose
that even those who still believe that each species was separately created
would admit that certain animals possess some sense by which they perceive
direction, and which they use instinctively. On mentioning the subject to
my son George, who is a mathematician and knows something about magnetism,
he suggested making a very thin needle into a magnet; then breaking it
into very short pieces, which would still be magnetic, and fastening one
of these pieces with some cement on the thorax of the insect to be
experimented on.

He believes that such a little magnet, from its close proximity to the
nervous system of the insect, would affect it more than would the
terrestrial currents.

I have received your essay on Halictus (298/1. "Sur les Moeurs et la
Parthenogese des Halictes" ("Ann. Sc. Nat." IX., 1879-80).), which I am
sure that I shall read with much interest.

LETTER 299. TO T.H. HUXLEY.

(299/1. On April 9th, 1880, Mr. Huxley lectured at the Royal Institution
on "The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species." The lecture was published
in "Nature" and in Huxley's "Collected Essays," Volume II., page 227.
Darwin's letter to Huxley on the subject is given in "Life and Letters,"
III., page 240; in Huxley's reply of May 10th ("Life and Letters of T.H.
Huxley," II., page 12) he writes: "I hope you do not imagine because I had
nothing to say about 'Natural Selection' that I am at all weak of faith on
that article...But the first thing seems to me to be to drive the fact of
evolution into people's heads; when that is once safe, the rest will come
easy.")

Down, May 11th, 1880.

I had no intention to make you write to me, or expectation of your doing
so; but your note has been so far "cheerier" (299/2. "You are the
cheeriest letter-writer I know": Huxley to Darwin. See Huxley's "Life,"
II., page 12.) to me than mine could have been to you, that I must and
will write again. I saw your motive for not alluding to Natural Selection,
and quite agreed in my mind in its wisdom. But at the same time it
occurred to me that you might be giving it up, and that anyhow you could
not safely allude to it without various "provisos" too long to give in a
lecture. If I think continuously on some half-dozen structures of which we
can at present see no use, I can persuade myself that Natural Selection is
of quite subordinate importance. On the other hand, when I reflect on the
innumerable structures, especially in plants, which twenty years ago would
have been called simply "morphological" and useless, and which are now
known to be highly important, I can persuade myself that every structure
may have been developed through Natural Selection. It is really curious
how many out of a list of structures which Bronn enumerated, as not
possibly due to Natural Selection because of no functional importance, can
now be shown to be highly important. Lobed leaves was, I believe, one
case, and only two or three days ago Frank showed me how they act in a
manner quite sufficiently important to account for the lobing of any large
leaf. I am particularly delighted at what you say about domestic dogs,
jackals, and wolves, because from mere indirect evidence I arrived in
"Varieties of Domestic Animals" at exactly the same conclusion (299/3. Mr.
Darwin's view was that domestic dogs descend from more than one wild
species.) with respect to the domestic dogs of Europe and North America.
See how important in another way this conclusion is; for no one can doubt
that large and small dogs are perfectly fertile together, and produce
fertile mongrels; and how well this supports the Pallasian doctrine
(299/4. See Letter 80.) that domestication eliminates the sterility almost
universal between forms slowly developed in a state of nature.

I humbly beg your pardon for bothering you with so long a note; but it is
your own fault.

Plants are splendid for making one believe in Natural Selection, as will
and consciousness are excluded. I have lately been experimenting on such a
curious structure for bursting open the seed-coats: I declare one might as
well say that a pair of scissors or nutcrackers had been developed through
external conditions as the structure in question. (299/5. The peg or heel
in Cucurbita: see "Power of Movement in Plants" page 102.)

LETTER 300. TO T.H. HUXLEY. Down, November 5th, 1880.

On reading over your excellent review (300/1. See "Nature," November 4th,
1880, page 1, a review of Volume I. of the publications of the
"Challenger," to which Sir Wyville Thomson contributed a General
Introduction.) with the sentence quoted from Sir Wyville Thomson, it
seemed to me advisable, considering the nature of the publication, to
notice "extreme variation" and another point. Now, will you read the
enclosed, and if you approve, post it soon. If you disapprove, throw it in
the fire, and thus add one more to the thousand kindnesses which you have
done me. Do not write: I shall see result in next week's "Nature." Please
observe that in the foul copy I had added a final sentence which I do not
at first copy, as it seemed to me inferentially too contemptuous; but I
have now pinned it to the back, and you can send it or not, as you think
best,—that is, if you think any part worth sending. My request will
not cost you much trouble—i.e. to read two pages, for I know that
you can decide at once. I heartily enjoyed my talk with you on Sunday
morning.

P.S.—If my manuscript appears too flat, too contemptuous, too
spiteful, or too anything, I earnestly beseech you to throw it into the
fire.

LETTER 301. CHARLES DARWIN TO THE EDITOR OF "NATURE."

(301/1. "Nature," November 11th, 1880, page 32.)

Down, November 5th, 1880.

Sir Wyville Thomson and Natural Selection.

I am sorry to find that Sir Wyville Thomson does not understand the
principle of Natural Selection, as explained by Mr. Wallace and myself. If
he had done so, he could not have written the following sentence in the
Introduction to the Voyage of the "Challenger": "The character of the
abyssal fauna refuses to give the least support to the theory which refers
the evolution of species to extreme variation guided only by Natural
Selection." This is a standard of criticism not uncommonly reached by
theologians and metaphysicians, when they write on scientific subjects,
but is something new as coming from a naturalist. Professor Huxley demurs
to it in the last number of "Nature"; but he does not touch on the
expression of extreme variation, nor on that of evolution being guided
only by Natural Selection. Can Sir Wyville Thomson name any one who has
said that the evolution of species depends only on Natural Selection? As
far as concerns myself, I believe that no one has brought forward so many
observations on the effects of the use and disuse of parts, as I have done
in my "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication"; and these
observations were made for this special object. I have likewise there
adduced a considerable body of facts, showing the direct action of
external conditions on organisms; though no doubt since my books were
published much has been learnt on this head. If Sir Wyville Thomson were
to visit the yard of a breeder, and saw all his cattle or sheep almost
absolutely true—that is, closely similar, he would exclaim: "Sir, I
see here no extreme variation; nor can I find any support to the belief
that you have followed the principle of selection in the breeding of your
animals." From what I formerly saw of breeders, I have no doubt that the
man thus rebuked would have smiled and said not a word. If he had
afterwards told the story to other breeders, I greatly fear that they
would have used emphatic but irreverent language about naturalists.

(301/2. The following is the passage omitted by the advice of Huxley: see
his "Life and Letters," II., page 14:—

"Perhaps it would have been wiser on my part to have remained quite
silent, like the breeder; for, as Prof. Sedgwick remarked many years ago,
in reference to the poor old Dean of York, who was never weary of
inveighing against geologists, a man who talks about what he does not in
the least understand, is invulnerable.")

LETTER 302. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(302/1. Part of this letter has been published in Mr. C. Barber's note on
"Graft-Hybrids of the Sugar-Cane," in "The Sugar-Cane," November 1896.)

Down, January 1st, 1881.

I send the MS., but as far as I can judge by just skimming it, it will be
of no use to you. It seems to bear on transitional forms. I feel sure that
I have other and better cases, but I cannot remember where to look.

I should have written to you in a few days on the following case. The
Baron de Villa Franca wrote to me from Brazil about two years ago,
describing new varieties of sugar-cane which he had raised by planting two
old varieties in apposition. I believe (but my memory is very faulty) that
I wrote that I could not believe in such a result, and attributed the new
varieties to the soil, etc. I believe that I did not understand what he
meant by apposition. Yesterday a packet of MS. arrived from the Brazilian
Legation, with a letter in French from Dr. Glass, Director of the Botanic
Gardens, describing fully how he first attempted grafting varieties of
sugar-cane in various ways, and always failed, and then split stems of two
varieties, bound them together and planted them, and then raised some new
and very valuable varieties, which, like crossed plants, seem to grow with
extra vigour, are constant, and apparently partake of the character of the
two varieties. The Baron also sends me an attested copy from a number of
Brazilian cultivators of the success of the plan of raising new varieties.
I am not sure whether the Brazilian Legation wishes me to return the
document, but if I do not hear in three or four days that they must be
returned, they shall be sent to you, for they seem to me well deserving
your consideration.

Perhaps if I had been contented with my hyacinth bulbs being merely bound
together without any true adhesion or rather growth together, I should
have succeeded like the old Dutchman.

There is a deal of superfluous verbiage in the documents, but I have
marked with pencil where the important part begins. The attestations are
in duplicate. Now, after reading them will you give me your opinion
whether the main parts are worthy of publication in "Nature": I am
inclined to think so, and it is good to encourage science in
out-of-the-way parts of the world.

Keep this note till you receive the documents or hear from me. I wonder
whether two varieties of wheat could be similarly treated? No, I suppose
not—from the want of lateral buds. I was extremely interested by
your abstract on suicide.

LETTER 303. TO K. SEMPER. Down, February 6th, 1881.

Owing to all sorts of work, I have only just now finished reading your
"Natural Conditions of Existence." (303/1. Semper's "Natural Conditions of
Existence as they affect Animal Life" (International Science Series),
1881.) Although a book of small size, it contains an astonishing amount of
matter, and I have been particularly struck with the originality with
which you treat so many subjects, and at your scrupulous accuracy. In far
the greater number of points I quite follow you in your conclusions, but I
differ on some, and I suppose that no two men in the world would fully
agree on so many different subjects. I have been interested on so many
points, I can hardly say on which most. Perhaps as much on Geographical
Distribution as on any other, especially in relation to M. Wagner. (No!
no! about parasites interested me even more.) How strange that Wagner
should have thought that I meant by struggle for existence, struggle for
food. It is curious that he should not have thought of the endless
adaptations for the dispersal of seeds and the fertilisation of flowers.

Again I was much interested about Branchipus and Artemia. (303/2. The
reference is to Schmankewitsch's experiments, page 158: he kept Artemia
salina in salt-water, gradually diluted with fresh-water until it became
practically free from salt; the crustaceans gradually changed in the
course of generations, until they acquired the characters of the genus
Branchipus.) When I read imperfectly some years ago the original paper I
could not avoid thinking that some special explanation would hereafter be
found for so curious a case. I speculated whether a species very liable to
repeated and great changes of conditions, might not acquire a fluctuating
condition ready to be adapted to either conditions. With respect to Arctic
animals being white (page 116 of your book) it might perhaps be worth your
looking at what I say from Pallas' and my own observations in the "Descent
of Man" (later editions) Chapter VIII., page 229, and Chapter XVIII., page
542.

I quite agree with what I gather to be your judgment, viz., that the
direct action of the conditions of life on organisms, or the cause of
their variability, is the most important of all subjects for the future.
For some few years I have been thinking of commencing a set of experiments
on plants, for they almost invariably vary when cultivated. I fancy that I
see my way with the aid of continued self-fertilisation. But I am too old,
and have not strength enough. Nevertheless the hope occasionally revives.

Finally let me thank you for the very kind manner in which you often refer
to my works, and for the even still kinder manner in which you disagree
with me.

With cordial thanks for the pleasure and instruction which I have derived
from your book, etc.

LETTER 304. TO COUNT SAPORTA. Down, February 13th, 1881.

I received a week or two ago the work which you and Prof. Marion have been
so kind as to send me. (304/1. Probably "L'Evolution du Regne vegetal," I.
"Cryptogames," Saporta & Marion, Paris, 1881.) When it arrived I was
much engaged, and this must be my excuse for not having sooner thanked you
for it, and it will likewise account for my having as yet read only the
preface.

But I now look forward with great pleasure to reading the whole
immediately. If I then have any remarks worth sending, which is not very
probable, I will write again. I am greatly pleased to see how boldly you
express your belief in evolution, in the preface. I have sometimes thought
that some of your countrymen have been a little timid in publishing their
belief on this head, and have thus failed in aiding a good cause.

LETTER 305. TO R.G. WHITEMAN. Down, May 5th, 1881.

In the first edition of the "Origin," after the sentence ending with the
words "...insects in the water," I added the following sentence:—

"Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were
constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the
country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by
Natural Selection more and more aquatic in their structures and habits,
with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous
as a whale." (305/1. See Letters 110 and 120.)

This sentence was omitted in the subsequent editions, owing to the advice
of Prof. Owen, as it was liable to be misinterpreted; but I have always
regretted that I followed this advice, for I still think the view quite
reasonable.

LETTER 306. TO A. HYATT. Down, May 8th, 1881.

I am much obliged for your kind gift of "The Genesis, etc." (306/1. "The
Genesis of the Tertiary Species of Planorbis," in the "Boston Soc. Nat.
Hist. Anniversary Mem." 1880.), which I shall be glad to read, as the case
has always seemed to me a very curious one. It is all the kinder in you to
send me this book, as I am aware that you think that I have done nothing
to advance the good cause of the Descent-theory. (306/2. The above caused
me to write a letter expressing a feeling of regret and humiliation, which
I hope is still preserved, for certainly such a feeling, caused
undoubtedly by my writings, which dealt too exclusively with disagreements
upon special points, needed a strong denial. I have used the Darwinian
theory in many cases, especially in explaining the preservation of
differences; and have denied its application only in the preservation of
fixed and hereditary characteristics, which have become essentially
homologous similarities. (Note by Prof. Hyatt.))

(306/3. We have ventured to quote the passage from Prof. Hyatt's reply,
dated May 23rd, 1881:—

"You would think I was insincere, if I wrote you what I really felt with
regard to what you have done for the theory of Descent. Perhaps this essay
will lead you to a more correct view than you now have of my estimate, if
I can be said to have any claim to make an estimate of your work in this
direction. You will not take offence, however, if I tell you that your
strongest supporters can hardly give you greater esteem and honour. I have
striven to get a just idea of your theory, but no doubt have failed to
convey this in my publications as it ought to be done."

We find other equally strong and genuine expressions of respect in Prof.
Hyatt's letters.)

LETTER 307. TO LORD FARRER.

(307/1. Mr. Graham's book, the "Creed of Science," is referred to in "Life
and Letters," I., page 315, where an interesting letter to the author is
printed. With regard to chance, Darwin wrote: "You have expressed my
inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than I could have
done, that the universe is not the result of chance.")

Down, August 28th, 1881.

I have been much interested by your letter, and am glad that you like Mr.
Graham's book...(307/2. In Lord Farrer's letter of August 27th he refers
to the old difficulty, in relation to design, of the existence of evil.)

Everything which I read now soon goes out of my head, and I had forgotten
that he implies that my views explain the universe; but it is a most
monstrous exaggeration. The more one thinks the more one feels the
hopeless immensity of man's ignorance. Though it does make one proud to
see what science has achieved during the last half-century. This has been
brought vividly before my mind by having just read most of the proofs of
Lubbock's Address for York (307/3. Lord Avebury was President of the
British Association in 1881.), in which he will attempt to review the
progress of all branches of science for the last fifty years.

I entirely agree with what you say about "chance," except in relation to
the variations of organic beings having been designed; and I imagine that
Mr. Graham must have used "chance" in relation only to purpose in the
origination of species. This is the only way I have used the word chance,
as I have attempted to explain in the last two pages of my "Variation
under Domestication."

On the other hand, if we consider the whole universe, the mind refuses to
look at it as the outcome of chance—that is, without design or
purpose. The whole question seems to me insoluble, for I cannot put much
or any faith in the so-called intuitions of the human mind, which have
been developed, as I cannot doubt, from such a mind as animals possess;
and what would their convictions or intuitions be worth? There are a good
many points on which I cannot quite follow Mr. Graham.

With respect to your last discussion, I dare say it contains very much
truth; but I cannot see, as far as happiness is concerned, that it can
apply to the infinite sufferings of animals—not only those of the
body, but those of the mind—as when a mother loses her offspring or
a male his female. If the view does not apply to animals, will it suffice
for man? But you may well complain of this long and badly-expressed note
in my dreadfully bad handwriting.

The death of my brother Erasmus is a very heavy loss to all of us in this
family. He was so kind-hearted and affectionate. Nor have I ever known any
one more pleasant. It was always a very great pleasure to talk with him on
any subject whatever, and this I shall never do again. The clearness of
his mind always seemed to me admirable. He was not, I think, a happy man,
and for many years did not value life, though never complaining. I am so
glad that he escaped very severe suffering during his last few days. I
shall never see such a man again.

Forgive me for scribbling this way, my dear Farrer.

LETTER 308. TO G.J. ROMANES.

(308/1. Romanes had reviewed Roux's "Struggle of Parts in the Organism" in
"Nature," September 20th, 1881, page 505. This led to an attack by the
Duke of Argyll (October 20th, page 581), followed by a reply by Romanes
(October 27th, page 604), a rejoinder by the Duke (November 3rd, page 6),
and finally by the letter of Romanes (November 10th, page 29) to which
Darwin refers. The Duke's "flourish" is at page 7: "I wish Mr. Darwin's
disciples would imitate a little of the dignified reticence of their
master. He walks with a patient and a stately step along the paths of
conscientious observation, etc., etc.")

Down, November 12th, 1881.

I must write to say how very much I admire your letter in the last
"Nature." I subscribe to every word that you say, and it could not be
expressed more clearly or vigorously. After the Duke's last letter and
flourish about me I thought it paltry not to say that I agreed with what
you had said. But after writing two folio pages I find I could not say
what I wished to say without taking up too much space; and what I had
written did not please me at all, so I tore it up, and now by all the gods
I rejoice that I did so, for you have put the case incomparably better
than I had done or could do.

Moreover, I hate controversy, and it wastes much time, at least with a man
who, like myself, can work for only a short time in a day. How in the
world you get through all your work astonishes me.

Now do not make me feel guilty by answering this letter, and losing some
of your time.

You ought not to swear at Roux's book, which has led you into this
controversy, for I am sure that your last letter was well worth writing—not
that it will produce any effect on the Duke.

LETTER 309. TO J. JENNER WEIR.

(309/1. On December 27th, 1881, Mr. Jenner Weir wrote to Mr. Darwin:
"After some hesitation in lieu of a Christmas card, I venture to give you
the return of some observations on mules made in Spain during the last two
years...It is a fact that the sire has the prepotency in the offspring, as
has been observed by most writers on that subject, including yourself. The
mule is more ass-like, and the hinny more horse-like, both in the
respective lengths of the ears and the shape of the tail; but one point I
have observed which I do not remember to have met with, and that is that
the coat of the mule resembles that of its dam the mare, and that of the
hinny its dam the ass, so that in this respect the prepotency of the sexes
is reversed." The hermaphroditism in lepidoptera, referred to below, is
said by Mr. Weir to occur notably in the case of the hybrids of Smerinthus
populi-ocellatus.)

Down, December 29th, 1881.

I thank you for your "Christmas card," and heartily return your good
wishes. What you say about the coats of mules is new to me, as is the
statement about hermaphroditism in hybrid moths. This latter fact seems to
me particularly curious; and to make a very wild hypothesis, I should be
inclined to account for it by reversion to the primordial condition of the
two sexes being united, for I think it certain that hybridism does lead to
reversion.

I keep fairly well, but have not much strength, and feel very old.

LETTER 310. TO R. MELDOLA. Down, February 2nd, 1882.

I am very sorry that I can add nothing to my very brief notice, without
reading again Weismann's work and getting up the whole subject by reading
my own and other books, and for so much labour I have not strength. I have
now been working at other subjects for some years, and when a man grows as
old as I am, it is a great wrench to his brain to go back to old and
half-forgotten subjects. You would not readily believe how often I am
asked questions of all kinds, and quite lately I have had to give up much
time to do a work, not at all concerning myself, but which I did not like
to refuse. I must, however, somewhere draw the line, or my life will be a
misery to me.

I have read your preface, and it seems to me excellent. (310/1. "Studies
in the Theory of Descent." By A. Weismann. Translated and Edited by
Raphael Meldola; with a Prefatory Notice by C. Darwin and a Translator's
Preface. See Letter 291.) I am sorry in many ways, including the honour of
England as a scientific country, that your translation has as yet sold
badly. Does the publisher or do you lose by it? If the publisher, though I
shall be sorry for him, yet it is in the way of business; but if you
yourself lose by it, I earnestly beg you to allow me to subscribe a
trifle, viz., ten guineas, towards the expense of this work, which you
have undertaken on public grounds.

LETTER 311. TO W. HORSFALL. Down, February 8th, 1882.

In the succession of the older Formations the species and genera of
trilobites do change, and then they all die out. To any one who believes
that geologists know the dawn of life (i.e., formations contemporaneous
with the first appearance of living creatures on the earth) no doubt the
sudden appearance of perfect trilobites and other organisms in the oldest
known life-bearing strata would be fatal to evolution. But I for one, and
many others, utterly reject any such belief. Already three or four piles
of unconformable strata are known beneath the Cambrian; and these are
generally in a crystalline condition, and may once have been charged with
organic remains.

With regard to animals and plants, the locomotive spores of some algae,
furnished with cilia, would have been ranked with animals if it had not
been known that they developed into algae.

LETTER 312. TO JOHN COLLIER. Down, February 16th, 1882.

I must thank you for the gift of your Art Primer, which I have read with
much pleasure. Parts were too technical for me who could never draw a
line, but I was greatly interested by the whole of the first part. I wish
that you could explain why certain curved lines and symmetrical figures
give pleasure. But will not your brother artists scorn you for showing
yourself so good an evolutionist? Perhaps they will say that allowance
must be made for him, as he has allied himself to so dreadful a man as
Huxley. This reminds me that I have just been reading the last volume of
essays. By good luck I had not read that on Priestley (312/1. "Science and
Culture, and other Essays": London, 1881. The fifth Essay is on Joseph
Priestley (page 94).), and it strikes me as the most splendid essay which
I ever read. That on automatism (312/2. Essay IX. (page 199) is entitled
"On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata, and its history.") is
wonderfully interesting: more is the pity, say I, for if I were as well
armed as Huxley I would challenge him to a duel on this subject. But I am
a deal too wise to do anything of the kind, for he would run me through
the body half a dozen times with his sharp and polished rapier before I
knew where I was. I did not intend to have scribbled all this nonsense,
but only to have thanked you for your present.

Everybody whom I have seen and who has seen your picture of me is
delighted with it. I shall be proud some day to see myself suspended at
the Linnean Society. (312/3. The portrait painted by Mr. Collier hangs in
the meeting-room of the Linnean Society.)

CHAPTER 1.VI.—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION, 1843-1867.

LETTER 313. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, Tuesday {December 12th, 1843}.

I am very much obliged to you for your interesting letter. I have long
been very anxious, even for as short a sketch as you have kindly sent me
of the botanical geography of the southern hemisphere. I shall be most
curious to see your results in detail. From my entire ignorance of Botany,
I am sorry to say that I cannot answer any of the questions which you ask
me. I think I mention in my "Journal" that I found my old friend the
southern beech (I cannot say positively which species), on the
mountain-top, in southern parts of Chiloe and at level of sea in lat. 45
deg, in Chonos Archipelago. Would not the southern end of Chiloe make a
good division for you? I presume, from the collection of Brydges and
Anderson, Chiloe is pretty well-known, and southward begins a terra
incognita. I collected a few plants amongst the Chonos Islands. The beech
being found here and peat being found here, and general appearance of
landscape, connects the Chonos Islands and T. del Fuego. I saw the Alerce
(313/1. "Alerse" is the local name of a South American timber, described
in Capt. King's "Voyages of the 'Adventure' and 'Beagle,'" page 281, and
rather doubtfully identified with Thuja tetragona, Hook. ("Flora
Antarctica," page 350.)) on mountains of Chiloe (on the mainland it grows
to an enormous size, and I always believed Alerce and Araucaria imbricata
to be identical), but I am ashamed to say I absolutely forget all about
its appearance. I saw some Juniper-like bush in T. del Fuego, but can tell
you no more about it, as I presume that you have seen Capt. King's
collection in Mr. Brown's possession, provisionally for the British
Museum. I fear you will be much disappointed in my few plants: an ignorant
person cannot collect; and I, moreover, lost one, the first, and best set
of the Alpine plants. On the other hand, I hope the Galapagos plants
(313/2. See "Life and Letters," II., pages 20, 21, for Sir J.D. Hooker's
notes on the beginning of his friendship with Mr. Darwin, and for the
latter's letter on the Galapagos plants being placed in Hooker's hands.)
(judging from Henslow's remarks) will turn out more interesting than you
expect. Pray be careful to observe, if I ever mark the individual islands
of the Galapagos Islands, for the reasons you will see in my "Journal."
Menzies and Cumming were there, and there are some plants (I think Mr.
Bentham told me) at the Horticultural Society and at the British Museum. I
believe I collected no plants at Ascension, thinking it well-known.

Is not the similarity of plants of Kerguelen Land and southern S. America
very curious? Is there any instance in the northern hemisphere of plants
being similar at such great distances? With thanks for your letter and for
your having undertaken my small collection of plants,

Believe me, my dear Sir, Yours very truly, C. DARWIN.

Do remember my prayer, and write as well for botanical ignoramuses as for
great botanists. There is a paper of Carmichael (313/3. "Some Account of
the Island of Tristan da Cunha and of its Natural Productions."—"Linn.
Soc. Trans." XII., 1818, page 483.) on Tristan d'Acunha, which from the
want of general remarks and comparison, I found {torn out} to me a dead
letter.—I presume you will include this island in your views of the
southern hemisphere.

P.S.—I have been looking at my poor miserable attempt at
botanical-landscape-remarks, and I see that I state that the species of
beech which is least common in T. del Fuego is common in the forest of
Central Chiloe. But I will enclose for you this one page of my rough
journal.

LETTER 314. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 31st (1844).

I have been a shameful time in returning your documents, but I have been
very busy scientifically, and unscientifically in planting. I have been
exceedingly interested in the details about the Galapagos Islands. I need
not say that I collected blindly, and did not attempt to make complete
series, but just took everything in flower blindly. The flora of the
summits and bases of the islands appear wholly different; it may aid you
in observing whether the different islands have representative species
filling the same places in the economy of nature, to know that I collected
plants from the lower and dry region in all the islands, i.e., in the
Chatham, Charles, James, and Albemarle (the least on the latter); and that
I was able to ascend into the high and damp region only in James and
Charles Islands; and in the former I think I got every plant then in
flower. Please bear this in mind in comparing the representative species.
(You know that Henslow has described a new Opuntia from the Galapagos.)
Your observations on the distribution of large mundane genera have
interested me much; but that was not the precise point which I was curious
to ascertain; it has no necessary relation to size of genus (though
perhaps your statements will show that it has). It was merely this:
suppose a genus with ten or more species, inhabiting the ten main
botanical regions, should you expect that all or most of these ten species
would have wide ranges (i.e. were found in most parts) in their respective
countries? (314/1. This point is discussed in a letter in "Life and
Letters," Volume II., page 25, but not, we think in the "Origin"; for
letters on large genera containing many varieties see "Life and Letters,"
Volume II., pages 102-7, also in the "Origin," Edition I., page 53,
Edition VI., page 44. In a letter of April 5th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker gave
his opinion: "On the whole I believe that many individual representative
species of large genera have wide ranges, but I do not consider the fact
as one of great value, because the proportion of such species having a
wide range is not large compared with other representative species of the
same genus whose limits are confined."

It may be noted that in large genera the species often have small ranges
("Origin," Edition VI., page 45), and large genera are more commonly
wide-ranging than the reverse.) To give an example, the genus Felis is
found in every country except Australia, and the individual species
generally range over thousands of miles in their respective countries; on
the other hand, no genus of monkey ranges over so large a part of the
world, and the individual species in their respective countries seldom
range over wide spaces. I suspect (but am not sure) that in the genus Mus
(the most mundane genus of all mammifers) the individual species have not
wide ranges, which is opposed to my query.

I fancy, from a paper by Don, that some genera of grasses (i.e. Juncus or
Juncaceae) are widely diffused over the world, and certainly many of their
species have very wide ranges—in short, it seems that my question is
whether there is any relation between the ranges of genera and of
individual species, without any relation to the size of the genera. It is
evident a genus might be widely diffused in two ways: 1st, by many
different species, each with restricted ranges; and 2nd, by many or few
species with wide ranges. Any light which you could throw on this I should
be very much obliged for. Thank you most kindly, also, for your offer in a
former letter to consider any other points; and at some future day I shall
be most grateful for a little assistance, but I will not be unmerciful.

Swainson has remarked (and Westwood contradicted) that typical genera have
wide ranges: Waterhouse (without knowing these previous remarkers) made to
me the same observation: I feel a laudable doubt and disinclination to
believe any statement of Swainson; but now Waterhouse remarks it, I am
curious on the point. There is, however, so much vague in the meaning of
"typical forms," and no little ambiguity in the mere assertion of "wide
ranges" (for zoologists seldom go into strict and disagreeable arithmetic,
like you botanists so wisely do) that I feel very doubtful, though some
considerations tempt me to believe in this remark. Here again, if you can
throw any light, I shall be much obliged. After your kind remarks I will
not apologise for boring you with my vague queries and remarks.

(315/1. The following letter refers to notes by Sir J.D. Hooker which we
have not seen. Though we are therefore unable to make clear many points
referred to, the letter seems to us on the whole so interesting that it is
printed with the omission of only one unimportant sentence.

The subjects dealt with in the letter are those which were occupying
Hooker's attention in relation to his "Flora Antarctica" (1844).)

I must thank you once again for all your documents, which have interested
me very greatly and surprised me. I found it very difficult to charge my
head with all your tabulated results, but this I perfectly well know is in
main part due to that head not being a botanical one, aided by the tables
being in MS.; I think, however, to an ignoramus, they might be made
clearer; but pray mind, that this is very different from saying that I
think botanists ought to arrange their highest results for non-botanists
to understand easily. I will tell you how, for my individual self, I
should like to see the results worked out, and then you can judge, whether
this be advisable for the botanical world.

Looking at the globe, the Auckland and Campbell I., New Zealand, and Van
Diemen's Land so evidently are geographically related, that I should wish,
before any comparison was made with far more distant countries, to
understand their floras, in relation to each other; and the southern ones
to the northern temperate hemisphere, which I presume is to every one an
almost involuntary standard of comparison. To understand the relation of
the floras of these islands, I should like to see the group divided into a
northern and southern half, and to know how many species exist in the
latter—

1. Belonging to genera confined to Australia, Van Diemen's Land and north
New Zealand.

2. Belonging to genera found only on the mountains of Australia, Van
Diemen's Land, and north New Zealand.

3. Belonging to genera of distribution in many parts of the world (i.e.,
which tell no particular story).

4. Belonging to genera found in the northern hemisphere and not in the
tropics; or only on mountains in the tropics.

I daresay all this (as far as present materials serve) could be extracted
from your tables, as they stand; but to any one not familiar with the
names of plants, this would be difficult. I felt particularly the want of
not knowing which of the genera are found in the lowland tropics, in
understanding the relation of the Antarctic with the Arctic floras.

If the Fuegian flora was treated in the analogous way (and this would
incidentally show how far the Cordillera are a high-road of genera), I
should then be prepared far more easily and satisfactorily to understand
the relations of Fuegia with the Auckland Islands, and consequently with
the mountains of Van Diemen's Land. Moreover, the marvellous facts of
their intimate botanical relation (between Fuegia and the Auckland
Islands, etc.) would stand out more prominently, after the Auckland
Islands had been first treated of under the purely geographical relation
of position. A triple division such as yours would lead me to suppose that
the three places were somewhat equally distant, and not so greatly
different in size: the relation of Van Diemen's Land seems so
comparatively small, and that relation being in its alpine plants, makes
me feel that it ought only to be treated of as a subdivision of the large
group, including Auckland, Campbell, New Zealand...

I think a list of the genera, common to Fuegia on the one hand and on the
other to Campbell, etc., and to the mountains of Van Diemen's Land or New
Zealand (but not found in the lowland temperate, and southern tropical
parts of South America and Australia, or New Zealand), would prominently
bring out, at the same time, the relation between these Antarctic points
one with another, and with the northern or Arctic regions.

In Article III. is it meant to be expressed, or might it not be understood
by this article, that the similarity of the distant points in the
Antarctic regions was as close as between distant points in the Arctic
regions? I gather this is not so. You speak of the southern points of
America and Australia, etc., being "materially approximated," and this
closer proximity being correlative with a greater similarity of their
plants: I find on the globe, that Van Diemen's Land and Fuegia are only
about one-fifth nearer than the whole distance between Port Jackson and
Concepcion in Chile; and again, that Campbell Island and Fuegia are only
one-fifth nearer than the east point of North New Zealand and Concepcion.
Now do you think in such immense distances, both over open oceans, that
one-fifth less distance, say 4,000 miles instead of 5,000, can explain or
throw much light on a material difference in the degree of similarity in
the floras of the two regions?

I trust you will work out the New Zealand flora, as you have commenced at
end of letter: is it not quite an original plan? and is it not very
surprising that New Zealand, so much nearer to Australia than South
America, should have an intermediate flora? I had fancied that nearly all
the species there were peculiar to it. I cannot but think you make one
gratuitous difficulty in ascertaining whether New Zealand ought to be
classed by itself, or with Australia or South America—namely, when
you seem (bottom of page 7 of your letter) to say that genera in common
indicate only that the external circumstances for their life are suitable
and similar. (315/2. On December 30th, 1844, Sir J.D. Hooker replied,
"Nothing was further from my intention than to have written anything which
would lead one to suppose that genera common to two places indicate a
similarity in the external circumstances under which they are developed,
though I see I have given you excellent grounds for supposing that such
were my opinions.") Surely, cannot an overwhelming mass of facts be
brought against such a proposition? Distant parts of Australia possess
quite distinct species of marsupials, but surely this fact of their having
the same marsupial genera is the strongest tie and plainest mark of an
original (so-called) creative affinity over the whole of Australia; no
one, now, will (or ought) to say that the different parts of Australia
have something in their external conditions in common, causing them to be
pre-eminently suitable to marsupials; and so on in a thousand instances.
Though each species, and consequently genus, must be adapted to its
country, surely adaptation is manifestly not the governing law in
geographical distribution. Is this not so? and if I understand you
rightly, you lessen your own means of comparison—attributing the
presence of the same genera to similarity of conditions.

You will groan over my very full compliance with your request to write all
I could on your tables, and I have done it with a vengeance: I can hardly
say how valuable I must think your results will be, when worked out, as
far as the present knowledge and collections serve.

Now for some miscellaneous remarks on your letter: thanks for the offer to
let me see specimens of boulders from Cockburn Island; but I care only for
boulders, as an indication of former climate: perhaps Ross will give some
information...

Watson's paper on the Azores (315/3. H.C. Watson, "London Journal of
Botany," 1843-44.) has surprised me much; do you not think it odd, the
fewness of peculiar species, and their rarity on the alpine heights? I
wish he had tabulated his results; could you not suggest to him to draw up
a paper of such results, comparing these Islands with Madeira? surely does
not Madeira abound with peculiar forms?

A discussion on the relations of the floras, especially the alpine ones,
of Azores, Madeira, and Canary Islands, would be, I should think, of
general interest. How curious, the several doubtful species, which are
referred to by Watson, at the end of his paper; just as happens with birds
at the Galapagos...Any time that you can put me in the way of reading
about alpine floras, I shall feel it as the greatest kindness. I grieve
there is no better authority for Bourbon, than that stupid Bory: I presume
his remark that plants, on isolated volcanic islands are polymorphous
(i.e., I suppose, variable?) is quite gratuitous. Farewell, my dear
Hooker. This letter is infamously unclear, and I fear can be of no use,
except giving you the impression of a botanical ignoramus.

LETTER 316. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, March 19th {1845}.

...I was very glad to hear Humboldt's views on migrations and double
creations. It is very presumptuous, but I feel sure that though one cannot
prove extensive migration, the leading considerations, proper to the
subject, are omit